o 

Til 

- 

>- 

""^ 

cc 

O 

<: 

. 

•  -u 

■^ 

^z 

tf) 

■"^   C 

LU 
CO 

0 

00    0 

-J 
<: 
o 

-i 

05 

, 

r         -HO) 

o 

Z 

>■ 

03 

o 

m 

5 

LO        r,    ^ 

—1 

z 

LU 

u 

z 

Q 

f^  w 

o 

UJ 

6 

1   00  0)  c^ 

LU 

i 

UJ 
CO 
Ul 

LU 

Q. 

t 

1- 
LL. 

E 

^  CO   w    c 
•  ^    CO    o 

O 

OJ 

S         W    CO 

>- 
CC 

cc 

rr 

00    .^    S 

an 

^^            

Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2010  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tlieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/discussionofconjOOelye 


DISCUSSION 


CONJOINT   QUESTION, 


re  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   ENDLESS    PUNISHMENT   TAUGHT   I^   THE   BIBLB  7 

OB  DOES  THE  BIBLE  TEACH  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FINAL  HOU- 

NESS  AND  HAPPINESS  OF  ALL  MANKIND'? 


A  SERIES  OF  LETTERS 

BETWEEN         i 

EZRA    STILES    ELY,    D.  D., 

Pastor  of  the  Third  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia, 

AND 

ABEL    C.THOMAS, 

Paster  of  the  First  Universalist  Church,  Philadelphia. 


NEW-YORK : 
PUBLISHED    BY  P.  PRICE 

No.  2  Chatham-square. 

STEBEOTYPED  BY  J.  S.  RBDFIEL©. 

18  35. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1835,  by 

P .    PRICE, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District 

of  New-York. 


PREFACE. 


The  reader  will  probably  desire  to  know  what  course  was  adopt- 
ed by  Rev.  Drs.  Brantley,  Tyng  and  Barnes,  in  relation  to  the 
proposal  which  led  to  the  controversy  between  Rev.  Dr.  Ely  and 
Mr.  Thomas.  Let  it  suffice  to  remark,  that  Drs.  Tyng  and 
Barnes  are  not  known  to  have  given  the  slightest  attention  to  the 
matter.  Rev.  Dr.  Brantley,  in  a  note  dated  "  January  30,  1834," 
stated  in  effect,  that  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him,  should  his 
society  approve  of  the  course,  to  hear  the  sentiments  of  Univer- 
salists  proclaimed  in  the  meeting  house  oi  the  First  Baptist 
Church,  in  Second-street,  Philadelphia— y  ith  the  understanding 
that  he  should  afterwards  examine  and  criticise  those  sentiments 
in  his  own  way  and  time.  He  also  stated,  that  the  house,  which 
was  undergoing  some  alterations,  would  "  not  be  tenantable  for 
two  months  to  come."  Immediately  after  the  receipt  of  this  note, 
Messrs.  Thomas  and  Fuller  presented  a  joint  request  for  the  use 
of  the  meeting-house,  so  soon  as  it  could  be  occupied.  To  the 
letter  containing  this  request,  no  answer  has  yet  been  received. 

Rev.  Ezra  Stiles  Ely  is  extensively  and  favourably  known  as 
a  Presbyterian  Clergyman,  author  of  several  Theological  works, 
Stated  Clerk  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  editor  of  The  Philadelphian.  He  is  a  graduate  of  Yale  College, 
from  which  institution,  we  believe,  he  received  the  title  and  degree 
of  Doctor  in  Divinity.  In  1814,  he  was  elected  to  the  pastoral 
charge  of  the  Third  Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia,  which 
station  he  recently  resigned,  having  accepted  the  appointment  of 
Professor  of  Polemic  Theology  in  jMarion  College,  Missouri. 

Rev.  Abel  C.  Thomas  commenced  the  Ministry  of  Reconcilia- 
tion in  December,  1828,  at  the  age  of  21  years.    In  April,  1829,  he 


i^  PREFACE. 

became  connected  with  a  society  of  Universalists  in  New- York,  in 
the  relation  of  Pastor,  which  charge  he  resigned  in  September  of 
the  same  year,  having  accepted  an  invitation  to  become  the  Pastor 
of  the  First  Universalist  Church  in  Philadelphia.  It  may  not  be 
improper  to  add,  that  he  never  enjoyed  the  advantages  of  a  colle- 
giate education. 

The  letters  of  Dr.  Ely,  were  originally  published  in  TTie  Phila- 
dephian  ;  those  of  Mr.  Thomas,  in  the  Messenger  and  Universa- 
list, excepting  the  seven  concluding  epistles  in  this  volume,  which 
now,  for  the  first  time,  appear  in  print. 

The  entire  controversy,  with  the  exception  of  the  seven  epistles 
above  referred  to,  was  republished  in  the  "Trumpet  and  Universa- 
list Magazine,"  Boston ;  "  Christian  Intelligencer,"  Gardiner,  Me.; 
"Star  in  the  East,"  Concord,  N.  H.;  "Universalist  Watchman," 
Montpelier,  Vt.;  "  Sentinel,"  Philomath,  la.;  "Herald  of  Truth,'' 
Geneva,  N.  Y.;  "  Liberalist,"  Philadelphia  ;  and  some  of  the  letters 
appeared  in  the  "  Southern  Pioneer,"  Baltimore;  and  in  the  "Iris," 
Mf;thuen,  Mass.  The  latter  is  a  literary  paper;  the  others  are 
Universalist  publications. 

The  discussion  is  now  presented  to  the  public,  verbatim,  as  it 
was  originally  published,  with  the  exception  of  a  trifling  change  of 
phraseology  in  a  single  sentence— to  which  a  special  reference  need 
not  be  made. 

In  the  month  of  February,  1834,  the  steam-boat  Wilham  Penn 
was  destroyed  by  fire,  in  the  river  Delaware.  Rev.  John  Mitchel- 
more,  of  Lewistown,  Del.,  was  drowned  in  attempting  to  reach 
the  shore.    To  this  circumstance  an  allusion  is  made  on  page  43. 

Cherishing  a  hope  that  this  volume  may  tend  in  some  measure  to 
a  correct  understanding  of  the  sacred  oracles,  it  is  respectfully  sub- 
mitted without  further  remark- 
New  York,  August,  1835. 


THE  PRINCIPAL  TEXTS 

Introduced  in  this  Discussion^  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  EndUtM 
Punishment. 

Deuteronomy  xxxii.  22;  "For  a  fire  is  kindled  in  mine  anger,  and 

shall  burn  unto  the  lowest  hell." 
Psalm  ix.  17  :    "  The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell,  and  all  the 

nations  that  forget  God."' 
Proverbs  xxix.  1 :     "  He  that  being  often  reproved  hardeneth  his 

neck,  shall  suddenly  be  destroyed,  and  that  without  remedy." 
Ezekiel  xviii.  31,  32  :    "  Why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ?    For  I 

have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord 

God  :  wherefore  turn  yourselves,  and  live  ye." 
Daniel  xii.  2:    "And  many  of  them  that   sleep  in  the  dust  of  the 

earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame 

and  everlasting  contempt." 
Matthew  X.  23:  "And  lear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not 

able  to  kill  the.  soul  :  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy 

both  soul  and  body  in  hell." 
Matthew  xii.  32:  "  Whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it 

shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the 

world  to  come." 
Matthew  xiii.  39—42  :  "The  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the 

reapers  are  the  angels.     As  therefore  the  tares  are  gathered  and 

burned  in  the  tire  ;  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  this  world.  The  Son 

of  man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of 

his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  which"  do  iniquity, 

and  shall  cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire  :  there  shall  be  wailing 

and  gnashing  of  teeth." 
Matthew  xvi.  26,  27  :  "  For  what  is  a  man  profited,  if  he  shall  gain 

the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  7  or  what  shall  a  man 

give  in  exchange  for  his  soul  7     For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in 

the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels  ;  and  then  he  shall  reward 


every  man  according  to  his  works, 
latthew  xxiii.  33:  "Ye 


Matthew  xxiii.  33  :  "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can 
ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell  7" 

Matthew  XXV.  41  :  "Depart  froni  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels." 

Matthew  xxv.  46  :  "And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  pun- 
ishment, but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal." 

Matthew  xxvi.  24  :  "  The  Son  of  man  goeth  as  it  is  ^yritten  of  him ; 
but  wo  unto  that  man  by  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed !  it 
had  been  good  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born." 

Mark  ix.  45,  46  :  ''  And  if  thy  foot  offend  thee,  cut  it  off:  it  is  better 
for  thee  to  enter  halt  into  life,  than  having  two  feet  to  be  cast  inlo 
hell,  into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be  quenched  :  where  their  worm 
dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched." 

Mark  xvi.  16;  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ; 
but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned." 


VI  PRINCIPAL  TEXTS. 

Luke  xiii.  3,  5 :  "  I^ell  you,  Nay :  but,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all 
likewise  perish.'" 

Luke  xiii.  23,  24 :  "  Lord,  are  there  few  that  be  saved  1  And  he  said 
unto  them,  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate;  for  many,  I  say 
unto  you,  will  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able." 

Luke  xiii.  27,  23  :  "Depart  from  me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity. 
There  shall  be  weepuig  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  m  the  king" 
dom  of  God,  and  you  yourselves  thrust  out." 

Luke  xvi.  19—31:  "There  was  a  certain  rich  man,  which  was 
clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen,  and  fared  sumptuously  every 
day;  and  there  was  a  certain  beggar  named  Lazarus,"  &c. 

John  iii.  3  :  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God." 

John  V.  28,  29  :  "  The  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are 
in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth  ;  they  that 
have  done  good,  unto  tne  resurrection  of  hfe  ;  and  they  that  have 
done  evil,  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation." 

Actsxvii.  31 :  "He  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the 
world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained." 

Romans  ii.  12,  16  :  "As  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also 
perish  without  law  ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law  shall 

be  judged  by  the  law in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge 

the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ  according  to  my  gospel." 

2  Corinthians  v.  10  :  "  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ ;  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his 
body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad." 

2  Thessalonians  1.  6—10  :  "When  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed 
from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaming  fire  taking  ven- 
geance on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the  gos- 
pel of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  who  shall  be  punished  with  ever- 
lasting destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  from  the 
glory  of  his  power." 

2  Peter  ii.  4—9  :  "For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but 
cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness, to  be  reserved  unto  judgment,"  &c. 

Jude  7  :  "  Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  .....  are  set  forth  for 
an  example,  sutiering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire." 

Revelation  xx.  12,  13:  "And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand 

before  God and  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in 

it ;  and  death  and  hell  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them  ; 
and  they  were  judged  every  man  according  to  his  works." 

Riwelation  xxi.  8  :  "  The  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and  the  abom- 
inable, and  murderers shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake 

which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone ;  which  is  the  second 
■oeath." 


THE  PRINCIPAL  TEXTS 

Tritroduced  in  this  Discussion^  in  proqfo/the  doctrine  of  Vnivei'ial 

lS>alvation. 
Genesis  xxii.  18 ;  xxviii,  14 ;  Acts  iii.  25  :   "  In  thee  and  in  thy  seed 

shall  all   the  nations,  families  and  kindreds  of  the  earth  be 

blessed." 
Psalm  xxii.  27,  28 :  "  All  the  ends  of  the  world  shall  remember  and 

turn  unto  the  Lord ;  and  all  the  kindreds  of  the  nations  shall  wor- 
ship before  thee." 
Isaiah  xxv.  8  :    '' He  will  swallow  up  death  in  victory;  and  the 

Lord  God  will  wipe  away  tears  from  off  all  faces." 
Matthew  xxii.  29,  30  :  "  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor 

the  power  of  God  ;  for  in  the  resurrection  ....  they  are  as  the 

angels  of  God  in  heaven." 
Luke  XX.  34,  35,  36  :    "The  children  of  this  world  marry,  and  are 

given  in  marriage ;  but  they  who  shall  be  accounted  worthy  to 

obtain   that  world,  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither 

marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage  ;  neither  can  thev  die  any  more; 

for  tliey  are  equal  unto  the  angels  ;  and  are  the  children  of  God, 

being  the  children  of  the  resurrection." 
John  i.  29  :  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of 

the  world." 
John  iii.  35;  vi.  37 :  "The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all 

things  into  his  hands  ....  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall 

come  to  me ;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast 

out." 
John  iv.  42  :  "This  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world." 
John  xii.  32  :  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all 

men  unto  me." 
Acts  xxiv.  15:    "And  have  hope  toward  God that  there 

shall  be   a   resurrection  of  the  dead,    both    of   the   just   and 

unjust."' 
Romans    v.  20:     "Where  sin  abounded,   grace  did   much  more 

abound." 
Romans  viii.  21  :  "  Because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  delivered 

from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 

children  of  God." 
Romans  xi.  32,  36:    "For  God  hath  concluded  all  in  rnbelief. 

that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all  ....  .  For   of  him,  and 

through  him,   and  to  him,  are  all  things :   to  whom   be  glory 

for  ever." 

1  Corinthians  xv.  22,  28 :  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  ma-de  alive  ....  And  when  all  things  shall  be  sub- 
dued unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  hunself  be  subject  unto 
him  that  put  all  things  under  him, that  God  may  be  all  in  all." 

2  Corinthians  i.  18,  19,  20  :  "  Our  word  toward  you  was  not  yea, 
and  nay,  but  in  him  was  yea.  For  all  the  promises  of  God  in  him 
are  yea,  and  in  him  Amen,  to  the  glory  of  God  by  us." 

2  Corinthians  v.  19:  "  God  was  in'Christ  reconciling  the  World 
unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  "ntn  them," 


Vni  PRINCIPAL   TEXTS. 

Galatians  iii.  8  :  "And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would 
justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto 
Abraham,  saying.  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed." 

Ephesians  i.  9,  10  :  "  Having  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of 
his  will,  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  which  he  hath  purposed 
in  himself;  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  time  he  might 

father  together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in 
eaven,  and  which  are  on  earth." 

Philippians  ii.  9,  10,  U  :  "  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name ;  that  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  hea- 
ven, and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that 
every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father." 

Philippians  iii.  20,  21 :  "For  our  conversation  is  in  heaven  ;  from 
whence  also  we  look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  who 
shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his 
glorious  body,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even 
to  subdue  all  things  to  himself." 

Colossians  i.  19,  20  :  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should 
all  fulness  dwell ;  and,  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of 
his  cross,  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himself." 

1  Ti-mothy  i.  15  :  "This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  ac- 
ceptation, that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
ners." 

i  Tnnothy  ii.  4  :  God  our  Saviour  "  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved, 
and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For  there  is  one 
God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due 
time." 

1  Timothy  iv.  10  :  "For  therefore  we  both  labour  and  suffer  re- 
proach, because  we  trust  in  the  living  God<  who  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men,  especially  of  those  who  beheve." 

IL  brews  ii.  9,  14  :  "  We  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower 
than  the  angels,  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory 
and  honour,  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for 
every  man  ....  Thai  uirough  death,  he  might  destroy  him  that 
had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil." 

1  John  ii.  1,2:    "  If  any  man   sin  we  have  an  advocate  with 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous  ;  and  he  is  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins ;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world." 

1  John  iii.  8  :  "For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested, 
that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil." 

1  John  iv.  14:  "We  have  seen  and  do  testify,  that  the  Father  sent 
the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world." 

I  John  v.  10,  11  :  "  lie  that  belieyeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the 
witness  m  himself ;  he  that  believeth  not  God,  hath  made  him  a 
liar;  because  he  believed  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his 
Son.  And  this  is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eter".al 
life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son." 


INDEX   OF  TEXTS, 

QUOTED,    REFERRED   TO,    OR    COMMENTED   UPON. 


GENESIS. 

PSALMS. 

Page 

Pag. 

iu.l5 

257 

i.  4—6,    ii.  12 

23 

iv.  16 

241 

ix.  16,  17                  23,  119, 

128,  129 

xxii.  13 

253 

xi.  5,  6,  xxi.  9 

23 

ixviii.  14 

253 

xvi.  11 

225 

xxix.  2 

233 

xxii.  27,  28 

262 

xxxvii.  35 

129 

xli.  2 
1.2-6 

53 

65,78 

LEVITICUS. 

1.23 

41 

vi.  9,  12,  13 

180 

Iviii.  11 

60,  126 

xviii.  29 

55 

Ixxiii.  18,  19 
Ixxx.  1 

83,93 
241 

NUMBERS. 

Ixxxvi.  13 
xci.  16 

214 
53 

xvi.  30—33 

96 

xcii.  7 

•  46,  54 

xxiii.  19 

253 

xcvi.  10—13 
cxii.  6,  10 

81 
43,  52 

DEUTERONOMY. 

cxvi.  3 

214 

xviii.  15—20 

55 

cxxxix.  7,  8 

241 

xxxii.  22                     120, 123 

129 

cxlv.  16 

260 

xxsii.  22—24 

214 

cxlv.  20,  cxlvi.  9 

23 

xxxii.  43—52 

97 

PROVERBS. 

2  KINGS. 

xiii.  23 

83. 

241 

iii.  16,  IV.  10 

53 

XX.  1 

97 

vi.  15 

36,  52 

xxiii.  10 

124 

X.  24 

260 

xxiv.  20 

83, 

241 

xi.  31                            25,  57, 
xix.  9 

69,  221 
43 

2  CHRONICLES 

xxviii.  10 

229 

xxix.  1                      29,  36,  44.  52.  77 

xxviii.  2,  3 

124 

xxxvi.  16,  17 

36 

,52 

ECCLESIASTES 

JOB. 

iii.  7,  xii.  14 

661,80 

iii.  2—16 

99 

iv.  1— 3j  vi.  3 

S9 

viii.  13 

43 

,52 

vii.  15 

34 

XXL  30 

87 

,  96 

viii.  5 

229 

X 

INDEX. 

ISAIAH. 

Page 

Pa«e 

i.  6 

209 

viii.  13,  14 

47,  55,  101 

i.  19,  20 

256 

viii.  3 

261 

xiv.  27 

262 

ix.  12,  13 

266 

XXV.  8 

258,  280 

X.  23 

54 

XXX.  33 

212 

X.28           29,36,123,131,157,178 

xxxi.  9 

38,  212 

X.  32,  33 

45 

xxxii.  1 

81 

xii.  30 

237 

xxxiv.  9 

10                  133 

,  158,  180 

xii.  31,  32 

171,  189 

xlix.  8 

81 

xiii.  38—43 

32,38,  45,  114,  212 

liii.  11 

261 

XV.  26,  27 

209 

Ivii.  1 

34 

xvi.  25,  26 

55 

Ixv.  20 

64,  77 

xvi.  27,  28 

67,81,82,  126,182,190 

ixvi.  24 

133,  153 

158,  179 

xviii.  8 
xviii.  11 

106,  144 
266 

JEREMIAH. 

xix.  28,  29 
xxii.  29,  30 

104 
135, 168,  184,  277 

vii.  20 

158,180 

xxiii.  14,  33 

29,  35,  123 

ix.  24 

81 

xxiv.  3 

38,  100,  105,  114 

xi.  4 

38 

xxiv.  4 

50 

XV.  10,  17 

99 

xxiv.  4—35 

53,  84,  139 

xvii.  27 

134,  181 

xxiv.  36—41 

90,  109,  138,  142,  147 

xix.  6,  9 

180 

251 

xxiii.  39, 

40 

83,  242 

XXV.  1—30 

45,  101,  110,  140 

lii.  3 

EZEKIEL. 

242 

XXV.  12,  31- 

-46      50,  54,   103,  111, 
140,  143,  230.  233 

xiii.  22 

55 

MARK. 

xviii.  31, 

32 

30,37 

viii.  36,  38  ix.  1                        53,55 

XX.  47,  4S 

134, 

158,  180 

ix.  30 

237 

xxii.  18— 22 

38,  212 

ix.  43—48 

125, 133,  144,  179 

xxxiii.  11 

30,37 

xii.  40 

35 

XXX  vii.  12 

186 

xiii.  27 

112 

xiii.  32 

149 

DANIEL. 

xiv.  21 

89,  98 

xii.  2,  3 

65,  77,  86 
JONAH. 

,  94,  185 

xvi.  16 
ii.  10 

28,  34,  44,  52 

LUKE. 

254 

i.  3,  ii.  4 

241 

ix.  50 
X.  15 

237 
212 

MALACHI. 

xi.  26 

55,  175 

il  17 

46,55 

xii.  4,  5 
xii.  28 

36 
70 

MATTHEW. 

xiii.  1 — 5 
xiii.  23 

51,  63,  76 
154,  173,  191,  196 

iii.  9 

36,213 

xiii.  33 

34 

V.  29,  30 

123.  132 

xiv.  24,  27 

155,  156,  177 

riLll 

70 

xiv.  28-30 

267 

INDEX, 


rvi.  19-31 
xvii.  30,  31 
xvii.  26—37 
xviii.  30 
xix.  41—44 
XX.  34—36 
xxi.  20,  32 
xxii.  29 
xxiii.  27—30 
xxiii.  34 


Page 

198,  203,  223,  226 

82 

109,  142,  149 

105,116 

187 

168,  187,  277 

81,83 

81,  126 

187 

267 


JOHN. 


1.29 

ill.  3—5,  14—16 

iii.  35 

iv.  42 

V.  22 

V.  24,  vi.  47 

V.  28,  29 

y.  45—47 

vi.  37 

viii.  39 

viii.  56 

ix.  32 

xii.  19 

xii.  32 

XV.  2,  6 

XV.  26 

xvii.  3 

xvii. 

xvii.  9,  20, 21 


287 

28,  33,  51 

225,  262,  272 

264 

81,  126 

34 

166,  155 

213 

225,  262 

213 

255 

113 

266 

257,  262 

166,  183,  276 

234 

34,  151 

98 

267 


ii.  11,  12,  16 
ill.  3,  4 

IV.  17 

V.  I— 10 
V.  2 

V.  6,  8,  10 
V.  20 
vi.  7 
viii.  14 
viii.  21 
xi.  32 
xi.  36 
XV.  13 
xvi.  25 


1.  18,  25 

ii.  40 
iii.  23 
iii.  25 
x36 
XV.  9 
XV..  18 
xvii.  5,  9 
xvii.  28 
xvii.  31 
xxiv.  15 


i.23 
iL6 


ACTS. 

88,98 

196 

45,55 

253 

272 

284 

101 

83,  233 

122 

67,81,128,126,161,182 

135,  166,  186,  279 


ROMANS. 


Page 

67, 80,'86, 94, 126,162 

256 

281 

74 

280 

61,  266 

257 

71 

282 

93,  152, 184,  257,  274,  278 

'  256 

93 

284 

113 


1  CORINTHIANS. 


U.  7 
X.  11 
xi.3 
xii.  3 
XV.  18 
XV.  22 
XV.  28 
XV.  35 
XV.  54,  55 


41, 


92, 

63, 

43 

56,  64,  77,  135,  165,183, 

25,  151,  176,  185,  272, 

135, 


113 
114 
280 
272 
,52 
275 
277 
163 
280 


2  CORINTHIANS. 

i.  18—20  356 

iv.  10  75 

V  1  105,  115,  142 
v".  8—10  66,  79,  169 

V  17  56,  77,  135,  276 
v'.18,19  40,62,75,274 
vi.  2 
xii.  4 


81 
130 


142 


iii.  7, 26 
iii.  8,9 
V.  6 
vi.  7 


i.  9—11 

ii.  89 
iii.  9 
iv.  9 
iv  18 


GALATIANS. 

282 

253,  254,  255 

284 


EPHESIANS. 


261 
26 
113 
130 
871 


Sll 


N  I>  E  X , 


PHILIPPIANS. 

Page 

ii.  9—11  40,  62,  75,  272 

U.  27  97 

iii.  18,  19  155,  175 

iii.  21  176,  279 

COLOSSIANS. 

L  16—18  39,  61,  271 

i.  20  25,  39.  59,  72,  89,  269,  272 


U21 
i.26 


274 
113 


1  THESSALONIANS. 

ii.  14,  16  233,  240 

2  THESSALONIANS. 

i.  6—10    68,  82,  99, 1 17, 197, 221,  233 

1  TIMOTHY. 


1.15 
ri.  4—6 
iv.  10 
V   17 


iv.  13 


1.12 
ii.  13 


2  TIMOTHY. 
TITUS. 


266,  272 

92,  258 

281 

2S3 


282 


122 

279 


HEBREWS, 

i.  2  272 

ii.  9  75,  85,  92,  93,  261,  280 

ii.  14  197,  257 

iv.  2,  Vi.  11  284 

vi.  13—18  254 

YiL  16.  ai  116, 142, 143 


Page 

viL28 

150 

ix.  26 

38,  100,  114 

ix.  27,  28 

141,  150,  161,  182 

X.  22,  23 

257,  284 

X.  37,  38 

47,  55 

i.  18 


JAMES. 


274 


1  PETER. 

i.  4 
i.  8 

2  PETER. 

116,  142 
284 

ii.  4, 17 

iii.  7 

1  JOHN. 

121 
43,52 

ii.  1,  2 
iii.  8 
iv.  14 
iv.  18 
V.  1 

v.  9—11 
V.  19 

JUDE. 

266 
197,  257 
264 
284 
185,  273 
255 
266 

5 

6,  7 
13 
14,  15 

46,54 
66,  79 

122 
65,78 

REVELATION, 
v.  13  73,  76,  272 

xiii.  8  156 

XX.  15  119,  126,  156, 177 

JUU.7,8  30,37,12$ 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 


TO  EZRA    STILES   ELY,   STEPHEN  H.   TYNG, 

WILLIAM  T.  BRANTLEY,  and  ALBERT  BARNES, 

Clergymen  of  the  City  of  Philadelphia. 

Brethren— Of  all  subjects  ever  presented  for  the  con- 
sideration of  man,  that  which  relates  to  our  final  destiny 
is  unquestionably  the  most  important.  The  concerns  of 
time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  afi'airs  of 
eternity.  A  few  more  years,  and  the  present  generation 
will  be  numbered  with  those  that  have  gone  before  us  to 
the  world  of  spirits.  And  no  one  who  accredits  the  doc- 
trine of  "life  and  immortality"  can  be  altogether  insensi- 
ble to  the  importance  of  the  question,  What  shall  be  the 
future  condition  of  man  ? 

You  believe  that  a  part  or  portion  of  the  human  race 
will  be  doomed  to  future  endless  punishment.  You  be- 
lieve that  this  doctrine  is  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  that 
the  Scriptures  not  only  authorize  but  command  you  to 
proclaim  it  as  the  truth  of  heaven. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  expressly  deny  that  said  doctrine 
is  true.  We  expressly  deny  that  it  is  taught  in  the  Bible, 
and  hereby  declare  our  solemn  conviction,  that j/ow  cannot 
prove  the  endless  punishment  of  any  part  or  portion  of  man- 
kind. And  we  farther  certify  you,  that  we  feel  ourselves 
obligated  to  believe  whatever  doctrine  can  be  fairly  and 
cleanly  established  by  Scripture  testimony. 

With  these  views,  and  prompted  solely  by  a  desire  to 
extend  the  knowledge  and  influence  of  Divine  truth,  we 
are  induced  respectfully  to  invite  your  attention  to  the 
following  proposals :  /.  r  • 

Will  you  (or  either  of  you)  deliver  a  series  of  Lectures  in 
our  churches  respectively,  during  this  winter,  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  future  endless  misery  ?  Not  more  than  two  of 
said  Lectures  to  be  delivered  each  week— that  is,  one  in. 

2 


14  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

each  of  the  churches,  on  any  day  or  evening  excepting 
Sunday.  On  our  part,  we  will  engage  to  invite  our  con- 
gregations respectively  to  attend  said  Lectures,  and  to 
attend  ourselves.  On  your  part,  we  shall  expect  you  to 
give  notice  after  each  Lecture,  that  it  will  be  revicAved  by 
the  Pastor  of  the  Church  in  which  it  was  delivered,  on  an 
evening  which  shall  then  be  named;  and  we  shall  also  ex- 
pect you  to  invite  your  congregations  respectively  to  attend. 
Should  the  foregoing  proposals  not  receive  your  appro- 
bation, we  respectfully  offer  the  following  : 

Will  you  (or  either  of  you)  alloiv  us  (or  either  of  us)  to 
deliver  a  series  of  Lectures  in  your  churches  respectively, 
during  this  winter,  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the  final  salva- 
tion  of  all  men  ?  The  spirit  of  the  preceding  conditions  to 
be  preserved. 

If  it  should  be  inquired  why  we  have  specially  directed 
this  letter  and  these  proposals  to  you,  this  is  our  answer: 
We  believe  you  are  better  qualified  to  sustain  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment,  than  are  any  other  clergymen  of 
Philadelphia  ;  and  we  are  desirous  that  ourselves  and  our 
congregations  should  hear  the  strongest  arguments  that 
can  be  advanced  on  that  side  of  the  question. 
With  sentiments  of  affectionate  regard, 

We  are  respectfully  yours,  &c. 
ABEL  C.  THOMAS, 
Pastor  of  the  1st  Universalist  Church.- 

S.  W.  FULLER, 
Pastor  of  the  2d  Universalist  Church. 
Philadelphia  Dec.  9, 1833. 


TO  EZRA    STILES   ELY,    STEPHEN   H.    TYNG, 
WILLIAM  T.  BRANTLEY,  and  ALBERT  BARNES, 

Brethren — The  importance  of  the  subject  of  the  previa 
ou?  letter,  (addressed  to  you  through  the  "  Messenger  and 
ULiversalist,")  in  connexion  with  our  earnest  desire  to 
learn  something  definite  in  relation  to  our  proposals,  will, 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  15 

we  trust,  be  considered  a  sufficient  apology,  if  any  be 
needed,  for  the  present  communication.  Our  object  is, 
simply,  to  be  definitely  certified  of  your  determination  in 
reference  to  the  proposals  adverted  to.  May  we  not  then, 
expect  a  line  from  you  touching  the  matter? 
With  sentiments  of  affectionate  regard. 

We  are  respectfully  yours,  &c. 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS, 
Philadelphia,  Jan.  22.  S.  W.  FULLER. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  Jan.  23d,  1834. 

Dear  Sir — The  Letter  addressed  to  myself  and  three 
of  my  brethren  in  the  ministry,  m  the  Messenger  and  Uni- 
versalisf,  on  the  14th  of  December  last,  never  met  my  eye 
until  some  time  near  the  6th  of  January;  when  the  paper 
containing  it  was  sent  me  through  the  post  office.  I  have 
not  conferred  with  the  other  gentlemen,  whom  you  have 
addressed ;  and  leave  them  to  answer  in  any  way  which 
they  may  think  proper. 

With  yourself  I  have  some  slight  acquaintance  ;  and 
permit  me  to  say,  that  I  entertain  for  you  sentiments  of 
respect.  I  do  not  withold  from  you  the  title  of  Reverend^ 
for  any  other  reason  than  this,  that  I  use  it  to  denote  one 
whom  I  regard  as  a  minister  of  Christ;  and  I  cannot  ac- 
knowledge any  one  v.'-ho  denies  the  future  punishment  of 
the  wicked  as  sustaining  that  official  character.  I  am 
glad  that  you  have  addressed  me  without  any  other  title 
than  that  of  5ro/Aer,  and  I  very  cordially  salute  you  in 
return  as  a  hrother  in  the  human  family.  Let  the  with- 
holding of  titles  be  no  offence  between  us.  Let  us  waive 
all  dispute  with  each  other  about  character,  office,  and 
every  thing  personal. 

I  decline  making  the  pulpit  or  any  place  of  worship  the 
theatre  of  a  public  disputation ;  because  I  think  few  per- 
sons would  be  likely  to  become  convinced  of  the  truth  by 


16  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

tearing  alternately  two  opponent  preachers.  We  might 
make  partisans,  but  I  should  think  few  converts  to  right- 
•eousness. 

I  propose  to  you  to  publish  in  The  Philadelphian  and 
any  Universalist  neivspaper  which  you  may  select,  a  dis- 
cussion between  you  and  myself  on  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal salvation ;  on  condition  that  you  will  first  distinctly 
inform  me  which  of  the  many  prevalent  systems  of  uni- 
versal salvation  you  judge  to  be  true.  It  is  to  be  under- 
stood, however,  that  each  editor  of  the  papers  concerned 
may  cease  from  publishing  the  controversy  whenever  he 
may  think  it  no  longer  profitable  to  his  subscribers.  Of 
course,  you  and  I  shall  cease  from  the  controversy  when 
we  choose.  If  either  of  us  shall  wish  to  proceed,  when 
the  other  declines  to  answer,  he  will  undoubtedly  have  the 
right  to  publish  any  thing  he  may  write  in  any  pages  to 
which  he  can  gain  access. 

My  design  is  not  useless  disputation,  nor  have  I  any 
desire  to  excite  unpleasant  feelings.  If  I  could,  I  should 
be  glad  to  convince  you  of  the  truth  of  what  I  believe  to 
be  the  gospel :  for  t  fear  that  you  may  perish  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  for  ever.  I  should  be  delighted  could 
I  be  the  means  of  effecting  such  a  revolution  in  your  sen- 
timents as  would  prepare  you  to  become  an  orthodox 
preacher  of  the  gospel.  On  the  other  hand,  you  feel  con- 
fident that  I  shall  reach  heaven ;  because  all  men,  agree- 
ably to  your  theory,  will  be  saved. 

I  have  only  to  add  on  the  present  occasion,  that  no  one 
erf  our  several  pieces,  if  we  wish  them  to  be  read,  ought 
to  exceed  two  columns  in  the  Philadelphian. 
Yours  respectfully, 

EZHA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  Jan.  27, 1834. 
Dear  Sir — I  feel  not  a  little  satisfaction  in  being  ena- 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  17 

bled  to  testify  to  the  frankness  and  courteous  diction  of 
your  letter  of  the  23d  inst.  I  have  so  repeatedly  had 
cause  to  complain  of  tiie  uncandid  and  ungenerous  treat- 
ment received  from  opposing  brethren,  that  the  Christian 
spirit  evinced  by  you  is  doubly  gratifying  to  my  feelings. 
I  freely  acknowledge  that  it  is  no  more  than  I  expected, 
and  no  less  than  I  had  reason  to  expect,  from  a  gentle- 
man of  your  character  and  standing  in  society.  And  I 
sincerely  hope  that  the  time  may  not  be  far  distant,  when 
a  correspondent  good  feeling  will  be  uniformly  manifest- 
ed by  all  the  opponent  sects  in  Christendom,  and  when  an 
honest  difference  of  opinion  will  prevent  no  one  from 
*'  endeavouring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond 
of  peace."  ,  , 

I  cordially  unite  with  you  m  saying,  Let  the  with- 
holding of  titles  be  no  offence  between  us.  Let  us  waive 
all  dispute  with  each  other  about  character,  office,  and 
.every  thing  personal."  And  while  on  this  point,  allow 
vme  to  observe,  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  title  "  Reverend" 
rbelongs  exclusively  to  the  Supreme  Being— that  I  do  not 
■prefix  it  to  the  names  of  my  Universalist  brethren,  and 
•that  I  never  apply  it  to  man,  excepting  in  cases  where  the 
.non-application  of  the  title  might  be  considered  a  mark 
.-of  disrespect.  , 

I  am  sorry  you  decline  accepting  either  of  tne  propo- 
sals contained  in  the  letter  of  December  14.  I  am  sorry, 
because  I  am  confident  that  a  public  disputation,  in  the 
manner  proposed,  would  excite  little  partisan  feeling, 
were  you  one  of  the  opponent  preachers  and  myself  the 
other.  And  more  attention  would  thus  be  directed  to  the 
disputed  question,  than  we  can  reasonably  expect  to  ex- 
cite by  a  written  controversy. 

You  propose  a  written  "  discussion  between  you  and 
myself  on  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation." 

It  appears  to  me  that  your  proposal  should  have  al- 
lowed a  choice  of  questions— because  the  joint  proposal 
of  S.  W.  Fuller  and  myself  left  it  entirely  optional  with 
you,  whether  you  would  deliver  a  series  of  lectures  in  our 
churches  in  proof  of  endless  punishment,  or  allow  us  to 
2^ 


18  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

deliver  a  series  in  your  church  in  proof  of  the  final  sal- 
vation of  all  men.  Should  not  your  proposal  have  been 
so  stated  as  to  allow  correspondent  option  on  my  part? 

Moreover,  you  say,  "  1  should  be  glad  to  convince  you 

of  the  truth  of  what  I  believe  to  be  the  gospel I 

should  be  delighted,  could  I  be  the  means  of  effecting 
such  a  revolution  in  your  sentiments,  as  would  prepare 
you  to  become  an  orthodox  preacher  of  the  gospel."  In 
view  of  this  statement,  the  proper  question  would  be,  Is 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  taught  in  the  Bible  ? 

If  this  question  should  not  meet  your  approbation,  I 
propose  annexing  thereto  the  following :  Or  does  the  Bible 
teach  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  mankind  ?  This 
joint  question  would,  I  apprehend,  as  equally  divide  the 
affirmative  labour  as  either  of  us  could  desire. 

In  relation  to  "  which  of  the  many  prevalent  systems 
of  universal  salvation"  I  "judge  to  be  true,"  I  need  only 
observe,  that  I  believe  the  Bible  furnishes  no  evidence  of 
a  punishment  beyond  the  present  life.  I  doubt  not  you 
will  inform  me,  with  equal  frankness,  whether  you  predi- 
cate endless  punishment  on  the  sins  of  this  life,  or  on  end- 
less sinning. 

On  your  part,  you  have  proposed  The  Philadelphian  as 
a  medium  of  communication.  On  my  part,  I  propose 
the  Messenger  and  Universal ist.  You  are  editor  of  the 
former,  and  I  am  one  of  the  editors  of  the  latter.  It  is  of 
course  understood  that  both  sides  of  the  controversy  shall 
appear  in  both  papers.  I  perfectly  agree  with  you,  "  that 
no  one  of  our  pieces,  if  we  wish  them  to  be  read,  ought 
to  exceed  two  columns  in  The  Philadelphian."  And  as  to 
the  length  to  which  the  controversy  may  be  protracted,  I 
shall  have  no  objection  to  any  equitable  arrangement. 

In  concluding  this  letter,  I  shall  adopt  your  own  lan- 
guage:  "My  design  is  not  useless  disputation,  nor  have 
I  any  desire  to  excite  unpleasant  feelings."  I  have  no 
worldly  interest  to  subserve  by  advocating  the  doctrine  of 
Universalism.  I  solem.nly  believe  it  to  be  the  truth  of 
tj-od,  and  feel  myself  bound  to  bring  into  exercise  my 
every  energy  in  its  proclamation  and  defence.    And  I  am 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  19 

Strengthened  and  encouraged  in  the  labour  of  love,  by  an 
unwavering  confidence,  that  even  my  opposing  brethren 
shall  not  "perish  from  the  presence  af  the  Lord  forever." 
In  (hem  I  behold  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord.  In  them  1 
recognise  the  children  of  our  common  Father.  And  I  re- 
joice in  believing  that  the  whole  race  of  mankind  shall 
eventually  bow  to  the  life-giving  sceptre  of  the  Prince  of 
iPeace.  Yours  respectfully, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  Jan:  31st,  1834. 
Dear  Sir— I  desired  to  know,  distinctly,  what  scheme 
of  universal  salvation  you  believe  to  be  true,  that  our  con- 
troversy might  be  brought  Avithin  reasonable  limits.  The 
Universalisfs  who  are  called  Restorationists,  have  proved, 
I  think,  unanswerably  from  the  Bible,  that  there  shall  be 
punishment  experienced  by  sinful  men  in  a  state  of  exist- 
ence after  the  present.  They  have  also  attempted  to 
show,  without  success,  in  my  judgment,  that  alter  tuture 
punishment  has  been  experienced  for  some  finite,  but  in- 
definite, time,  there  will  be,  in  the  lapse  of  everlastmg 
a<'es  a  restoration  of  all  human  bemgs  to  happiness  ^ 
°From  your  last  letter  I  learn  that  you  are  not  of  their 
number.  You  have  furnished  me  with  two  propositions 
which  you  are  willing  to  support.  n  i     ,  ooo 

First,  you  assert,  in  your  letter  of  December  9tli,  IbdcJ, 
that  you  feel  yourself  obligated  to  believe  whatever 

DOCTRINE    can    BE    FAIRLY  AND    CLEARLY    ESTABLISHED  BY 

Scripture  testimony.     This  I  adopt  as  one  of  the  settled 
principles  on  which  our  discussion  is  to  rest: 

Secondly,  you  assert,  in  your  letter  of  January  27th, 
that  you  "  believe  the  Bible  furnishes  no  evidence  of  a 

PUNI?HAIENT  beyond  THE  PRESENT  LIFE." 

This  doctrine  is  held  by  some,  in  connexion  with  an 
opinion  that  this  is  man's  only  state  of  existence,  and  ac- 


-20  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

cording  to  their  theory,  there  is  no  future  state  for  man- 
kind, either  of  happiness  or  of  misery ;  because  man  at 
death  ceases  to  exist. 

Others  hold,  that  ail  men  who  arrive  at  the  moment  of 
death  without  having  repented,  will  thereafter  be  annihi- 
lated ;  and  so  on  the  principle  of  the  Destructionists,  will 
escape  all  future  punishment. 

Others  teach,  that  in  the  moment  of  entering  the  future 
spiritual  state  of  existence,  every  man  not  before  con- 
verted to  God  will  become  a  renewed  person,  a  child  of 
Ood,  a  lover  of  holiness,  and  so  will  escape  all  future 
punishment. 

Others  again  teach,  that  the  present  is  the  only  state 
of  retribution  for  man  ;  that  the  judgment  is  already  past ; 
that  strict,  full,  and  final  justice  is  done  to  all  men  in  this 
life  ;  and  that  the  life  to  come  is  a  state  of  happiness  re- 
sulting from  the  mere,  unmingled  mercy  of  God,  irre- 
spective of  the  claims  of  justice,  which  have  all  been  sat- 
isfied in  relation  to  each  individual  before  his  death,  by 
the  punishment  of  his  sins  in  his  own  person. 

Others,  finally,  teach,  that  when  men  come  to  die, 
whatever  may  have  been  their  sins,  and  whether  they 
have  repented  of  them  or  not  in  this  world,  Christ  has, 
by  his  mediatorial  work  and  full  satisfaction  for  all  the 
sins  of  all  men,  secured  to  them  an  immediate  introduc- 
tion to  heaven.  This  is  what  they  call  universal  salva- 
tion by  free  grace. 

I  should  like  to  know  upon  which  of  these  grounds 
you  judge,  that  ^Aere  is  no  punishment  beyond  the  present 
life :  or  if  you  have  some  other  scheme  of  universal  sal- 
vation from  all  future  punishment,  which  has  not  been 
named,  that  you  would  frankly  disclose  it.  If  you  choose, 
however,  you  will  undoubtedly  have  the  right  to  resort  to 
any  one  or  all  of  these  theories,  which  I  deem  refuges 
of  lies. 

That  you  may  not  take  the  trouble  to  argue  against 
doctrines  which  I  disclaim,  I  shall  freely  state  my  creed 
on  such  subjects  as  I  suppose  may  be  involved  in  our  pre- 
sent discussion. 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  !M. 

I  ttelieve,  then,  that  the  one,  only,  living  and  true  God, 
the  Maker  of  man,  exists,  a  wise,  just,  kind,  and  good 
moral  governor  of  all  rational  beings — that  his  creature 
man  is  the  intelligent,  sensitive,  free,  accountable,  effi- 
cient author  of  all  his  own  moral  actions — that  every 
accountable,  free,  moral  agent,  of  the  human  family,  has 
freely,  and  without  any  compulsion,  necessity,  or  divine 
efficiency,  exerted  in  the  case,  sinned  against  his  Moral 
Governor,  by  acting  in  opposition  to  God's  law — that  the 
present  life  is  a  statue  of  trial,  preparatory  to  a  future  state 
of  endless  retribution — that  in  the  present  life  the  provi- 
dence of  God  causes  much  natural  good  and  evil  to  min- 
gle in  every  man's  lot— that  all  the  pains  of  this  life  are 
indicative  of  God's  displeasure  against  sin ;  and  that  all 
the  favours  men  receive  from  Heaven  are  indications  of 
God's  goodness— that  in  the  present  life  obedience  to  the 
moral  law  is  not  fully  and  perfectly  rewarded,  nor  diso- 
bedience universally  and  completely  punished—that  if 
men  repent  and  become  the  friends  of  God,  while  in  their 
present  state  of  trial,  all  their  sins  will  in  the  moment 
of  such  repentance  be  pardoned,  for  the  sake  of  Christ's 
mediatorial  work,  so  that  they  never  more  shall  experi- 
ence any  pains  which  are  not  fatherly  corrections,  in- 
tended to  improve  them— that  if  men  do  not  repent  of 
their  sins  in  the  present  life  and  become  children  of  God 
by  that  great  moral  change  which  the  Saviour  describes 
as  a  new  birth,  thev  suffer  pain  in  this  life,  and  will  suffer 
in  a  future  state  of  being,  and  will  suffer  for  ever,  unpar- 
doned, and  accursed  of  their  Maker— that  all  the  suffer- 
ings of  any  one  unpardoned  sinner,  after  the  present  life, 
will  be  exactly  proportioned  to  the  amount  of  his  crimes 
in  this  life ;  and  will  correspond  to  the  measure  of  his 
continued  sinning  in  the  life  to  come — that  no  lost  sinner 
in  the  future  life  will  ever  there  repent  and  be  pardoned 
— that  all  pain  is  an  attribute  of  feeling,  and  that  all  the 
punishments  of  the  damned  will  consist  for  ever  in  the 
feelings  of  their  own  minds— that  sinful  feelings  are  in 
their  own  nature,  or  their  speedy  mental  results,  painful 
— that  all  the  sufferings  of  the  lost  are  deserved  and 


28  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

suitable  vindications  of  God's  essential  justice  and  moral 
government — and  that  no  sinner  will  ever  be  damned 
of  God  one  moment  longer  than  he  continues  an  obsti- 
nate rebel  against  the  justice,  mercy  and  goodness  of  God 
manifested  through  Jesus  Christ. 

It  may  be  important  to  add,  that  I  believe  mind  to  be 
a  distinct  substance  from  matter;  that  spirit  is  mind  con- 
ceived of  as  capable  of  subsisting  and  acting  indepen- 
dently of  bodily  organization ;  that  the  souls  of  men  are 
active,  sensitive,  intelligent  and  efficient  agents,  in  a 
state  of  spiritual  existence,  called  the  intermediate  state, 
between  death  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body ;  that  a 
particular  personal  judgment  passes  on  each  spirit  of  a 
man  so  soon  as  it  permanently  leaves  the  body ;  and  that 
there  shall  be,  in  the  end  of  the  world,  a  resurrection 
of  every  human  body,  not  before  raised  from  the  dead; 
in  order  that  each  spirit  may  inhabit  for  ever  its  own 
former  body,  resuscitated,  and  adapted  to  its  endless 
state. 

If  you  will  deal  with  equal  candour,  give  me  your  creed, 
and  let  our  readers  know  how  far  we  agree  in  sentiment; 
it  may  prevent  much  useless  argumentation. 

Should  I  meet  you  on  the  ground  of  reason  and  analogy, 
I  should  say,  God  is  as  good  noio  as  he  will  be  at  any 
future  time;  and  yet  his  wisdom,  power  and  goodness 
have  not  prevented  all  sin  and  suffering  now ;  and  there- 
fore there  is  no  reason  to  conclude  these  same  attributes 
will  preclude  rebellion  and  misery  at  any  time  hereafter. 

I  might  add,  that  man's  wisdom  and  goodness  do  not 
prevent  him  from  being  wicked  and  miserable  now,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  infer  that  they  will  in  future ;  for 
all  experience  shows  that  wicked  men  and  seducers  wax 
worse  and  worse. 

We  come,  however,  to  the  Bible,  and  I  am  glad  our 
inquiry  is  to  be,  V[^at  saith  the  Scripture? 

The  Bible  throughout  presents  to  my  mind  a  contrast 
between  the  present  character,  and  the  future  prospects 
of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  It  sets  in  opposition 
salvation  and  damnation,  heaven  and  hell.     We  read, 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCTTSSION.  23 

"The  Lord  preserveth  all  them  that  love  him  r  hut  all  the 
wicked  will  he  destroy,"  Psalm  cxlv.  20.  "  The  way 
of  the  wicked  he  lurnelh  upside  down,"  Psalm  cxlvi.  9, 
"  The  ungodly,"  we  are  told  in  the  first  Psalm,  "  are  like 
the  chaflf  which  the  wind  driveth  away.  Therefore  the 
un<^odly  shall  not  stand  in  the  judgment :— the  way  of  the 
ungodly  shall  perish."  In  the  second  Psalm,  kings  and 
iud°o-es  are  exhorted  to  "  kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry ; 
\nSthey  perish  from  the  way,  when  his  wrath  is  kindled 
but  a  little."  "  The  Lord  is  known  by  the  judgment 
which  he  executeth  :  the  wicked  is  snared  in  the  work 
of  his  own  hands.  The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell, 
and  all  the  nations  that  forget  God,"  Psalm  ix.  16,  17. 
"  The  Lord  trieth  the  righteous :  but  the  wicked,  and  him 
that  loveth  violence,  his  soul  hateth.  Upon  the  wicked 
he  shall  rain  snares,  fire  and  brimstone,  and  a  horrible 
tempest :  this  shall  be  the  portion  of  their  cup,"  Psalm 
xi.  5,  6.  "The  Lord  shall  swallow  them  up  in  his 
wrath,  and  the  fire  shall  devour  them,"  Psalm  xxi.  9. 
Now  to  destroy  the  wicked,  to  turn  their  way  upside 
down,  to  drive  them  away  like  chaff,  not  to  let  them 
stand  in  the  judgment,  to  turn  them  into  hell,  and  to  have 
snares,  fire,  brimstone  and  tempest  for  their  portion,  must 
mean  any  thing  rather  than  universal  salvation. 
I  remain  yours  respectfullv, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  8,  1834. 
Dear  Sir- In  my  last  letter,  I  proposed  the  following 
joint  question  as  the  basis  of  our  discussion,  viz.  Istlw 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment  taught  in  the  Bible  J  or  does 
the  Bible  teach  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  man- 
kind  ?  As  you  have  not  objected  to  this  proposition,  it  is 
presumable  that  you  accede  to  it.  This,  then,  I  shall 
consider  a  settled  point. 


24  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

When  you  desired  me  to  state  "  which  of  the  many 
prevalent  systems  of  universal  salvation"  I  "judge  to  be- 
true,"  I  supposed,  and  felt  myself  justified  in  supposing, 
that  you  simply  wished  to  know  whether  I  did  or  did  not 
hold  to  punishment  in  the  future  state.  I  frankly  certi- 
fied you  that  "  I  believe  the  Bible  furnishes  no  evidence 
of  a  punishment  beyond  the  present  life."  But  it  seems 
that  this  answer  did  not  cover  the  entire  ground  of  your 
query.  You  ask  me  whether  I  hold  lo  the  annihilation 
of  the  human  race  ;  or  whether  1  beli(!ve  with  the  Des- 
tructionists,  that  the  wicked  shall  be  blotted  out  of  exist- 
ence. All  this  you  ask  in  full  view  of  the  fact,  that  I  had 
engaged  to  sustain,  on  Bible  testimony,  the  final  holiness 
and  happiness  of  all  mankind  ! 

After  noticing  five  theories,  including  the  two  above 
referred  to,  each  of  which  you  seem  to  consider  worthy 
the  name  Universalism,  you  say,  that  if  I  have  any  other 
system  of  universal  salvation,  you  would  like  me  to  dis- 
close it — and  then  you  add,  "  If  you  choose,  however,  you 
will  undoubtedly  have  the  right  to  resort  to  any  one  or 
all  of  these  theories,  which  I  deem  refuges  of  lies." 

Let  us  suppose  that  in  my  last  letter  to  you  I  had 
drawn  a  faithful  portraiture  of  Mahommedanism— an- 
other of  Mormonism — another  of  original  Calvinism — 
another  of  Arminianism — and  a  fifth  of  Arminio-Calvin- 
ism.  And  suppose  that,  having  placed  these  several 
theories  before  you,  I  should  have  added,  "  If  you  have 
some  other  scheme  of  endless  punishment,  which  has  not 
been  named,  I  desire  you  frankly  to  disclose  it.  If  you 
choose,  however,  you  will  undoubtedly  have  a  right  to 
resort  to  any  one  or  all  of  these  theories,  which  I  deem 
refuges  of  lies." — In  this  case  what  would  have  been  your 
judgment?  I  am  satisfied  you  would  have  said,  in  effect, 
"  What  does  all  this  amount  to  ?  It  is  any  thing  but 
argument.  By  classing  the  system  of  an  opponent  with 
theories  which  you  know  he  abhors,  and  then  styling 
them  refuges  of  lies,  you  may  excite  prejudice  against  him 
— ^but  you  cannot  reasonably  expect,  by  such  a  course,  to 
subserve  the  interest  of  the  truth  of  God."    Such,  I  am 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  25 

persuaded,  would  have  been  your  judgment — and  your 
judgment,  in  my  opinion,  would  have  been  just. 

There  are  but  three  systems  of  Universalism.  Istr 
Calvinism  Improved — chiefly  differing  from  Calvinism  in 
supposing  a  universal  vicarious  atonement,  and  in  the  con- 
sequent salvation  of  all  men.  Edward  Mitchell,  of  New 
York,  is,  I  believe,  the  only  public  advocate  of  this  form 
of  Universalism  in  the  United  States.* 

2d.  Arminianism  Extended — the  system  advocated  by 
"Winchester,  Chauncey,  and  others.  It  extended  proba- 
tion into  the  future  state,  and  allowed  of  future  limited 
punishment,  resulting  in  the  final  holiness  and  happiness 
of  all  mankind.  This  system  is  held  by  many  Universal- 
ists — and  prominentUj  by  the  "  Massachusetts  Restora- 
tionist  Association." 

3d.  In  noticing  the  third  system,  I  shall  give  you  my 
own  views — premising  that  they  are  the  views  of  a  large 
majority  of  American  Universalists.  1st.  I  believe  that 
God  "  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds," 
that  is,  according  to  his  own  deeds,  Rom.  ii.  6 ; — conse- 
quently I  reject  the  doctrine  oi  vicarious  atonement.  2d. 
I  believe  that  "  the  righteous  shall  be  recompensed  in 
THE  EARTH,  much  morc  the  wicked  and  the  sinner,"  Prov. 
xi.  31  ; — consequently,  "  I  believe  the  Bible  furnishes  no 
evidence  of  a  punishment  beyond  the  present  life."  3d. 
I  believe  that  God  "  will  reconcile  all  things  to  himself," 
that  "  God  may  be  all  iri  all,"  Col.  i.  20 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  28. 
And  this  salvation  I  believe  to  be  "the  gift  of  God,  and 
not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast,"  Ephes.  ii.  8,  9. 

Although  I  have  been  thus  particular  in  stating  my 
Bible  creed,  1  wish  to  have  it  distinctly  understood,  that 
in  the  present  controversy,  I  shall  conhne  my  remarks  to 
the  two  prominent  doctrines  of  endless  punishment,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all 
mankind,  on  the  other.  With  topics  of  minor  import- 
ance I  shall  have  nothing  to  do,  excepting  so  far  as  they 


*  Edward  Mitchell  departed  this  life  on  the  8th  day  of  August, 
1334. 

3 


26  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

may  have  a  direct  iearinfr  on  the  general  issue.  I  shall 
expect  you  to  furnish  such  Bible  testimony  in  proof  of 
endless  punishment  as  you  may  deem  conclusive  ;  and  I 
shall  produce  Bible  testimony  in  proof  of  the  final  salva- 
tion of  all  mankind.  I  shall  use  all  honourable  means  to 
convince  you  that  the  passages  by  you  citeJ  do  not  esta- 
blish the  point  to  be  proved ;  and  in  like  manner  you  will 
be  called  on  to  show  Avherein  the  evidence  by  me  ad- 
duced, fails  to  establish  the  doctrine  I  have  engaged  to 
sustain. 

You  are  aware  that  all  I  desired  you  to  state.  Avas, 
"whether  you  predicate  endless  punishment  on  the  sins 
of  this  life,  or  on  endless  i,inning."  The  creed  with 
which  you  have  furnished  me  was  therefore  uncalled  for, 
excepting  so  far  as  it  gave  me  to  understand  your  views 
on  that  particular  point  of  doctrine.  And  in  my  view, 
any  thing  farther  was  wholly  unnecessary.  Until  the 
joint  question  mentioned  in  the  first  paragraph  of  this 
letter,  is  disposed  of,  I  shall  not  consent  to  discuss  the 
doctrines  of  original  sin,  total  or  partial  depravity,  neces- 
sity or  free  will,  moral  or  physical  ability  or  inability, 
vicarious  atonement,  the  trinity,  materiality  or  immate- 
riality, intermediate  state — or  in  short  any  other  doctrines 
than  those  mentioned  in  the  question.  My  reasons  for 
confining  the  present  discussion  to  these  limits,  are  briefly 
as  follows : 

The  original  proposal  slated,  that  "of  all  subjects  ever 
presented  for  the  consideration  of  man,  that  which  relates 
to  our  final  destiny  is  unquestionably  the  most  important." 
Our  readers  are  primarily  interested  in  coming  to  "  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth,"  in  relation  to  the  momentous 
concerns  of  eternity.  They  feel  comparatively  little  in- 
terest in  minor  points  of  theology.  If  you  can  prove  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  they  will  mourn  over  the 
prospective  doom  of  the  children  of  humanity  ;  but  if  I 
can  clearly  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  "  reconciliation 
of  all  things,"  and  thus  vindicate  the  ways  of  God  to  man, 
they  will  "rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable  ^ndfull  of  glory. ^* 
They  have  fixed  their  eyes  upon  us,  and  are  saying  in 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  27 

their  hearts,  ''  Brethren,  do  not  perplex  our  minds  with 
the  subtillies  of  polemic  theology.  We  wish  you  to 
keep  the  two  prominent  doctrines  constantly  in  view. 
We  wish  to  know,  definitely,  what  will  be  the  final  des- 
tiny of  ourselves,  our  children,  our  relatives,  and  of  the 
world  at  large.  We  beg  you  to  leave  minor  points  out 
of  the  question.  We  wish  the  discussion  to  be  of  definite 
character.  Let  the  inquiry  be.  What  saitli  the  Scripture  1 
Exercise  Christian  charity  and  candour,  and  we  have 
little  doubt  that  the  truth  of  the  matter  Avill  be  clearly 
revealed." 

As  to  the  passages  quoted  in  the  concluding  paragraph 
of  your  letter,  I  have  only  to  remark,  that  you  will  most 
probably  introduce  them,  in  their  proper  place,  as  proofs 
of  the  doctrine  you  suppose  them  to  teach  ;  and  they  will 
then  receive  the  attention  they  justly  deserve. 

I  shall  expect  your  next  communication  to  contain  as 
many  of  your  proofs  of  endless  punishment  as  to  you 
may  appear  expedient. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  17th,  1834. 
Dear  Sir — You  have  distinctly  informed  me,  in  the 
letters  already  received  from  you,  (1.)  that  in  your  opin- 
ion, we  are  bound  to  believe  whatever  doctrine  can  be 
fairly  and  clearly  established  by  Scripture  testimony;  (2.) 
that  the  Bible  furnishes  no  evidence  of  a  punishnient  be- 
yond the  present  life  ;  (3.)  that  in  the  present  life  God 
fully  and  finally  recompenses  the  righteous  and  the  wick- 
ed, according  to  each  person's  own  deeds;  (4.)  that  the 
Bible  teaches  no  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  atonement ;  and 
(5.)  that  the  Bible  asserts  the  final  holiness  and  happiness 
of  all  mankind  in  a  future  state.  On  each  of  these  points, 
except  the  first,  we  differ  in  our  judgment. 


28  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

The  Bible  furnishes  much  evidence  of  a  punishment  beyond 
the  present  life,  which  shall  be  experienced  by  all  who  die 
without  having  been  born  again.  This  punishment  includes 
their  being  deprived  of  the  happiness  of  the  righteous  in 
heaven,  and  all  the  painful  feelings  which  will  be  expe- 
rienced in  hell,  whatever  may  be  the  occasion  or  the  in- 
strumental cause  of  those  pains. 

Our  Saviour  says,  "Except  a  man  be  born  again  he 

cannot  see he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God," 

John  iii.  3,  5.  These  words  imply,  that  some  men  are 
not  in  the  kingdom  of  God;  that  some  men  have  not  been 
born  again ;  and  that  unless  they  should  be  born  again, 
they  shall  for  ever  remain  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of 
God.  If  all  men  are  born  again,  or  will  be  born  again, 
it  was  absurd  for  Christ  to  frighten  men  with  the  idea 
of  their  not  entering  the  kingdom  of  God. 

"  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begot- 
ten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life,"  John  lii.  16.  Here 
I'ERDiTioN  and  EVERLASTING  LIFE  are  exhibited  in  contrast. 
These  words  clearly  teach,  that  if  God  had  not  given  his 
Son,  men  would  all  have  perished;  but  that  now  believ- 
ers, and  believers  alone,  shall  escape  perdition  and  enjoy 
everlasting  life.  This  corresponds  with  another  saying 
of  Jesus,  Mark  xvi.  16,  that  "  he  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned."  Before  his  death,  Christ  asserted  the  man- 
ner, the  necessity  and  the  design  of  it,  saying,  "  as  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the 
Son  of  man  be  lifted  up ;  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life,"  John  iii.  14, 
15.  If  there  are  none  who  will  remain  in  unbelief,  the 
threat  of  perdition  was  idle,  and  unworthy  the  Saviour. 
Had  Christ  believed  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  it 
would  have  been  natural  for  him  to  have  said,  "he  tha* 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  be- 
lieveth not  shall  be  saved."  Or  he  might  have  caused  it 
to  be  written,  "  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved;  and  all  shall  believe  and  be  baptized."    This  last 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  29 

Statement,  however,  would  have  been  contrary  to  known 
truth  ;  for  in  every  past  age  multitudes  have  neither  be- 
lieved nor  been  baptized.  Why  should  Christ  say  any 
thing  about  damnation  or  perdition^  if  it  is  certain,  in  his 
mind,  that  all  will  be  saved  ?  Why  should  he  have  said, 
"  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape 
the  damnation  of  hell  ?"  Matt,  xxiii.  33.  The  damna- 
tion of  hell  surely  does  not  mean  ihe  salvation  of  heaven  : 
and  had  Christ,  who  as  God  knows  all  things,  known  any 
■way  of  escape  from  hell  for  the  hypocrites  to  whom  he 
addressed  the  interrogation,  his  interrogation  would  have 
proved  himself  a  deceiver.  "  Ye  devour  widows'  houses, 
and  for  a  pretence  make  long  prayers  :  therefore  ye  shall 
receive  the  greater  damnation,"  ver.  14.  These  same 
persons  Christ  accuses  of  not  entering  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  themselves,  and  of  not  suffering  others  to  enter. 

Would  you,  sir,  dare  to  accost  Christ  and  say,  "  You 
knew  well  enough  how  that  generation  of  vipers  would 
escape  the  damnation  of  hell,  and  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven!  You  knew  also,  that  none  will  be  prevented 
from  entering  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  for  all  shall  enier 
and  be  saved."  On  the  supposition  that  all  are  to  be 
saved,  one  of  these  vipers  might  have  replied,  "Who  will 
not  escape  the  damnation  of  hell  ?"  Will  you  attempt  to 
prove  that  damnation  does  not  mean  damnation,  but  some- 
thing tantamount  to  salvation  1 

"  He  that  being  often  reproved  hardeneth  his  neck,  shall 
suddenly  be  destroyed,  and  that  without  remedy,"  Prov. 
xxix.  I.  Here  sudden  destruction  is  denounced  against 
some  ;  and  it  is  declared  that  there  is  no  remedy  for  that 
destruction.  This  passage  cuts  off  all  hope  from  those 
who  assert  that  there  is  a  remedy,  and  a  restoration  ulti- 
mately, to  be  expected  in  the  future  life.  If  the  hardened 
sinner  spoken  of  is  to  be  destroyed  merely  in  the  present 
life,  and  then  is  to  be  restored  to  Divine  favour,  the  decla- 
ration is  not  true,  that  he  shall  he  destroyed  without  remedy. 

I  cannot  but  think  this  passage  in  Proverbs  refers  to  the 
same  destruction  which  Christ  spoke  of  when  he  said, 
*'  Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  bodv,  but  are  not  able  to 
3* 


oO  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

kill  ihe  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy 
both  soul  and  body  in  hell,"  Matthew  x.  28.  This  is  a 
destruction  after  the  dissolution  of  soul  and  body ;  a  de- 
struction of  the  whole  man  in  hell.  How,  then,  say  some 
among  you,  that  there  is  no  hell ;  or  that  there  is  no  evil 
experienced  by  any  of  the  human  family  after  the  pre- 
sent life  ?  If  there  is  no  such  thing  as  God's  destroying 
both  soul  and  body  in  hell — that  is,  in  some  state  after  the 
termination  of  our  earthly  course  by  natural  death,  we 
must  regard  our  Saviour  as  resorting  to  imposition,  when 
he  exhorted  men  to  fear  unreal  objects  of  dread  and  alarm. 
Would  any  honest  person  warn  a  man  to  fear  that  which 
is  not  to  be  feared ;  or  to  avoid  an  evil  to  which  none  are 
exposed  ? 

In  Ezekiel  xviii.  31,  32,  God  remonstrates  with  sinners, 

saying,  "  Why  will  ye  die  ?" "  for  I  have  no  pleasure 

in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  God :  where- 
fore turn  yourselves,  and  live  ye."  Natural  death,  or  the 
dis^^olution  of  soul  and  body,  is  inevitable.  It  would  be 
mockery  to  approach  a  gasping  mortal  and  ask  him,  Why 
wilt  thou  cease  to  breathe  ?  It  is  of  a  death,  that  may 
be  avoided ;  of  a  spiritual,  second,  and  everlasting  death 
in  sin  and  to  all  holiness,  that  Jehovah  demands,  Why 
inll  ye  die  ?  Had  I  the  sentiments  of  Universalists,  I 
might  very  lawfully  and  consistently  with  myself  reply 
to  my  Maker,  "  Do  not  trouble  yourself  to  expostulate 
with  me,  nor  endeavour  to  excite  groundless  alarms;  for 
my  Lord  is  well  assured  that  none  will  die.  All  will 
EE  saved;  and  be  saved  by  himself  too!  Why,  then, 
should  he  take  the  trouble  to  swear  by  himself,  saying, 
^5  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  the  ivicked?^^     Ezek.  xxxiii.  11. 

On  the  supposition  that  there  is  no  death  after  natural 
death,  every  such  solemn  and  tender  warning  of  our  mer- 
ciful God  must  be  regarded  as  a  solemn  farce.  That  there 
is  3.  second  death,  which  consists  in  an  everlasting  separa- 
tion from  the  enjoyment  of  God  and  the  society  of  the 
good  in  heaven,  is  clearly  taught  in  Revelation  xxi.  7,  8; 
"  He  that  overcometh  shall  inherit  all  things ;  and  I  will 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  31 

be  his  God,  and  he  shall  be  my  son.  But  the  fearful  and 
unbelieving,  and  the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and 
whoremongers,  and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars, 
shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire 
and  brimstone  :  which  is  the  second  death."  Here  the 
pen  of  inspiration  has  drawn  a  contrast  between  the  fu- 
ture state  of  one  who  overcometh  this  sinful  world,  and 
persons  of  a  different  character:  but  if  all  men  will  be 
saved  immediately  after  leaving  the  present  state  of  be- 
ing, there  is  no  second  death,  and  then  he  who  overcom- 
eth, and  all  who  die  impenitent,  liars,  murderers,  idolaters 
and  unbelievers,  shall  slike  inherit  all  things ;  and  none 
have  their  part  in  a  state  of  punishment  symbolized  by  a 
lake  of  fire  unquenchable.  Poetry  I  know  proves  no- 
thing; but  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the  last  cited  text 
of  Scripture  is  admirably  expanded  in  the  following 
stanzas : 

"  Far  from  the  utmost  verge  of  day 
Those  gloomy  regions  lie, 
Where  flames  amid  the  darkness  play, 
The  worm  shall  never  die. 

The  breath  of  God— his  angry  breath 

Supplies  and  fans  the  fire  : 
There  sinners  taste  the  second  death, 

And  would,  but  can't  expire. 

Conscience,  the  never  dying  worm, 

With  torture  gnaws  the  heart; 
And  wo  and  wrath  in  every  form, 

Is  now  the  sinner's  part ! 

Sad  world  indeed  !  ah,  who  can  bear 

For  ever  there  to  dwell  1 
For  ever  sinking  in  despair, 

In  all  the  pains  of  hell !" 

It  is  my  prayer  that  you  may  never  have  personal  ex- 
perience of  the  truth  of  these  lines. 

Were  there  no  other  passage  of  the  Bible  on  the  sub- 
ject of  controversy  between  us  than  the  parable  of  the 
good  seed  and  the  fares,  I  should  think  that  sufficient  for 
the  refutation  of  your  opinion  :  "or  Christ,  in  explaining 


32 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 


his  own  meaning,  said,  "  The  field  is  the  world ;  the  good 
seed  are  the  children  of  the  kingdom;  hut  the  tares  are 
the  children  of  the  wicked  one  ;  the  enemy  that  sowed 
them  is  the  devil;  the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world; 
and  the  reapers  are  the  angels.  As  therefore  the  tares 
are  gathered  and  burned  in  the  fire;  so  shall  it  be  in  the 
end  of  the  world.  The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his 
angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things 
that  offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity  ;  and  shall  cast 
them  into  a  furnace  of  fire :  there  shall  be  wailing  and 
gnashmg  of  teeth.  Then  shall  the  righteous  shine  forth 
as  the^sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father,"  Matt.  xiii. 
38—43.  Here  our  Saviour  tells  us  what  shall  take  place 
m  the  end  of  the  world :  that  then  there  shall  be  amon^y 
men  tAvo  sorts  of  children;— the  children  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  the  children  of  the  v/icked  one,  the  d'evil ; 
that  the  children  of  the  wicked  one  having  grown  like 
tares  in  God's  kingdom  of  this  world,  the  field,  shall  be 
gathered  out  of  it ;— that  the  glory,  honour,  and  happi- 
ness of  the  righteous,  who  are  the  children  of  God,  shall 
then  be  comparable  to  the  clear  shining  of  the  sun';  and 
that  the  sufferings  of  those  who  have  done  iniquity,  and 
have  continued  tares  to  the  end  of  the  world,  are  fitly  de- 
scribed by  wailing,  gnashing  of  teeth,  and  the  tortures 
that  would  result  from  casting  persons  into  a  furnace  of 
fire. 

All  this  I  believe  as  firmly  as  that  there  is  any  future 
state  for  man ;  and  I  affectionately  and  respectfully,  there- 
fore, entreat  you,  dear  sir,  and  all  who  may  read  our  let- 
ters, 10  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  on  all  who  die  the  se- 
cond death.  Make  your  calling  and  election  sure,  and 
then  while  many  perish  in  their  sins,  you  will  be  -^lorious 
with  our  God,  '  ^ 

Other  proofs  of  the  future  punishment  of  persons,  who 
die  unpardoned,  and  not  "  meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  in- 
heritance of  the  saints  in  light."  will  be  presented,  if  the 
Lord  permit,  in  some  subsequent  letter. 

Yours  respectfully, 

EZRA  STJLES  ELY. 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  33 

TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES   ELY. 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  22,  1834. 

Dear  Sir — In  attereplin^  to  prove  any  particular  doc- 
trine by  the  Bible,  due  caution  should  be  ohserved  in  the 
selection  of  the  testimony.  Such  passages  only  should 
be  quoted  as  are  supposed  unequivocally  to  prove  the 
doctrine  in  question.  And  I  have  little  doubt,  that  in  en- 
deavouring to  establish  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment, you  have  cited  the  passages  which  to  your  mind 
appear  most  conclusive. 

Before  I  proceed  to  an  examination  of  your  proofs,  al- 
low me  to  observe,  that  it  would  not  be  courteous  in  either 
of  us  to  charge  the  other  with  a  denial  of  the  Scriptures. 
I  am  satisfied  that  our  differences  in  sentiment  arise,  not 
from  a  rejection  of  the  Bible  on  either  hand,  but  from  our 
different  apprehensions  of  the  import  of  its  language. 
And  it  should  be  remembered  that  my  opinions  do  not 
more  widely  differ  from  yours,  than  yours  do  from  mine. 
An  intimated  charge  of  infidelity  by  either  party  would, 
therefore,  be  equally  indecorous  and  unjust. 

As  it  is  understood  to  be  mutually  conceded  that  the 
parties  to  the  discussion  accredit  the  testimony  of  the 
Bible,  according  to  their  respective  apprehensions  of  its 
meaning,  the  simple  quotation  of  a  Scripture  passage 
should  not  be  considered  sufficient  proof  of  a  position. 
An  attempt  should,  in  all  cases,  be  made  to  show,  that  the 
passage  establishes  the  point  to  be  proved. 

In  proof  of  endless  punishment,  you  quote  John  iii.  3, 
5  :  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  sec — he  can- 
not enter  the  kingdom  of  God."  But  you  assume  that 
the  langdom  of  God  here  mentioned,  appertains  to  a  future 
immortal  existence.  This  is  the  point  to  be  proved. 
LiGHTFOOT,  whose  general  orthodoxy  you  will  not  ques- 
tion, says:  "That  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  heaven, 
are  terms  convertible  in  the  evangelist,  is  obvious  to 
every  one  that  will  take  the  pains  to  compare  them  ;  and 
that  by  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  heaven,  is  meant  the 
kingdom  and  liav'S  of  the  Messiah,  is  so  plain,  that  it 


34  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

needs  no  argument  to  prove  it.  .  .  .  Speech  is  there  had 
(John  iii.  3,)  of  Christ's  kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth, 
or  the  state  under  Christ."     So  also  Eeza,  Whitby,  &c. 

John  iii.  14 — 16,  "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted 
up,  that  whosoever  belie veth  in  him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world,"  &c. 
That  to  perish  does  not  signify  to  suffer  endless  punish- 
ment is  obvious.  "  There  is  dijiist  man  that  perisheth  in 
his  righteousness,"  Eccl.  vii.  15.  "  The  righteous  per- 
isheth,'''' isa.  Ivii.  1.  "It  cannot  be  that  a  prophet  per- 
ish out  of  Jerusalem,"  Liike  xiii.  33.  You  say,  how- 
ever, that  to  perish  and  to  Jtave  everlasting  life  are  exhibited 
in  contrast.  Granted.  But  in  thence  arguing  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment,  you  assume  that  the  everlasting 
life  mentioned  in  the  text  appertains  to  a  future  immor- 
tal existence.  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know 
thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  w^hom  thou 
hast  sent,"  John  xvii.  3.  "  He  that  believeth  on  him 
that  sent  me  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into 
condemnation,  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life,"  John 
V.  24.  "  He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life,'''' 
John  vi.  47.  The  believer  enjoys  everlasting  life  in  this 
w^orld,  and  the  unbeliever  'perishes  in  this  w^orld.  The 
former  lives  on  the  knowledge  of  God — the  latter  perishes 
with  moral  hunger. 

Mark  xv^i.  16,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  As 
you  apply  this  passage  to  a  future  state,  and  speak  of  it 
in  an  unrestricted  sense,  you  cannot  justly  object  to  being 
tried  by  it.  "  These  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe  ; 
in  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils;  they  shall  speak 
with  new  tongues ;  they  shall  take  up  serpents ;  and  it 
they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  them  ;  they 
shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover."  As 
these  signs  do  not  follow  yon,  you  cannot  be  a  believer, 
and  of  course  you  must  be  damned,  according  to  your 
own  showing  !  And  if  to  be  damned  signifies  to  be  doomed 
to  endless  punishment,  such  must  be  your  fate.     But  the 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  35 

truth  is,  the  passage,  in  my  judgment,  had  its  fulfilment 
in  the  age  of  miracles.  To  that  age  were  confined  the 
particular  salvation  and  damnation  spoken  of,  inasmuch 
as  to  that  age  were  confined  the  signs  of  believers.  As 
to  the  word  damn,  Dr.  Campbell  remarks,  that  in  the  text 
it  corresponds  exactly  to  the  English  word  condemn, — 
and  affirms  that  the  passage  has  no  reference  to  a  future 
life.  So  also  Horne.  If  Jesus  had  intended  to  teach 
endless  punishment,  he  Avould  have  said,  "He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  in  fAis  world,  shall  be  saved  in  the 
next — and  he  thnt  believeth  not  and  is  not  baptized  in 
this  world,  shall  be  eternally  damned  in  the  ?jc:r/." 

Matt,  xxiii.  14,  "  Ye  shall  receive  the  greater  damna- 
tion." You  have  not  attempted  to  prove  that  this  "  greater 
damnation"  signifies  endless  punishment.  On  the  paral- 
lel passage,  Mark  xii.  40,  Pkarce  remarks,  "  Rather  judg- 
ment or  punishment ;  by  which  is  meant,  that  they  should 
suffer  more  severely  than  other  sinners,  when  the  Jewish 
state  should  be  destroyed." 

Matt,  xxiii.  33,  "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers, 
how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell?"  You  have 
not  attempted  to  prove  that  the  hell  here  spoken  of  is  in 
a  future  state  of  existence.  You  have  simply  quoted  the 
passage,  relying  on  the  prepossession  of  the  reader  for 
the  application  you  desire.  Be  it  known  that  I  as  firmly 
accredit  the  testimony  of  Jesus  as  you  can  possibly  do. 
The  question  is  simply  on  the  import  of  the  testimony. 
If  you  can  prove  that  the  damnation  or  punishment  of 
gehenna  [the  word  translated  hell]  was  to  be  inflicted  in  a 
future  state  of  existence,  I  will  yield  the  argument,  but 
you  canrtot  reasonably  expect  me  to  believe  your  unsup- 
ported assertions.  I  am  prepared  to  meet  you  in  dis- 
cussion of  all  that  the  Bible  says  about  gehenna.  Before 
you  said,  "The  damnation  of  hell  surely  does  not  mean 
the  salvation  of  heaven'^  and  before  you  put  the  question, 
"  AVill  you  attempt  to  show  that  dawiiation  does  not  mean 
damnation,  but  something  tantamount  to  salration?'''  you 
should  have  attempted  to  .show  from  the  Bible  that  dam- 
nation means  misery  in  a  future  state,  and  that  the  dam- 


36  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

nation  of  hell  surely  means  endless  punishment.  Let 
me  respectfully  entreat  you  to  forbear  assuming  the  pre- 
dicates of  your  arguments. 

Proverbs  xxix.  1,  "  He  that  being  often  reproved  har- 
denelh  his  neck,  shall  suddenly  be  destroyed,  and  that 
without  remedy."  I  have  frequently  been  surprised  tP 
hear  this  passage  seriously  urged  in  proof  of  endless  pun- 
ishment. When  we  say  of  a  man  in  the  last  stages  of 
consumption,  "  he  will  certainly  die,  and  that  without 
remedy," — or  of  a  house  enveloped  in  flames,  "  it  will  cer- 
tainly be  destroyed,  and  that  without  remedy ;"  do  we  mean 
that  either  the  man  or  the  house  will  be  miserable  in  a  fu- 
ture state?  Solomon  says  of  a"  naughty  person,"  that"  his 
calamity  shall  come  suddenly  ;  suddenly  shall  he  be  bro- 
Jcenwithout  remedij,^^  Prov.  vi.  15.  Of  the  "chief  of  the 
priests  and  people,"  it  was  said,  "  they  mocked  the  mes- 
sengers of  God until  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  arose 

against  his  people,  till  there  was  no  remcchj ;  therefore  he 
brought  upon  them  the  king  of  the  Chaldeans,  who  slew  their 
young  men,^^  kc,  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  16,  17.  The  most  that 
can  be  said  of  the  text  and  the  two  foregoing  cases  is,  that 
death  was  inevitable — there  was  no  remedy — no  escape. 

Matt.  X.  28,  "  Fear  not  them  that  kill  the  body,"  &c. 
The  parallel  is  Luke  xii.  4,  5.  You  remark  in  effect,  that 
if  your  view  of  the  text  be  not  correct,  our  Saviour  ex- 
horted men  to  fear  unreal  objects  of  dread  !  This  is  as- 
suming that  he  taught  endless  punishment  in  the  passage 
before  us.  And  it  supposes  also,  that,  in  your  opinion, 
there  is  no  object  of  dread  besides  endless  punishment. 
Whatever  be  the  object  of  dread  mentioned  in  the  text, 
it  is  certain  that  the  disciples  alone  are  exhorted  to  fear  it ! 
No  such  language  ivas  ever  addressed  to  any  but  the  disciples 
of  Christ.  Be  it  noticed,  also,  that  whatever  is  destroyed 
ceases  to  exist,  and  of  course  ceases  to  suffer  or  enjoy. 
Moreover,  if  God  be  intended  by  the  word  him,  (which  is 
questionable,)  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  his  ahiliti/  to 
do  certain  things  is  not  suflicient  authority  for  affirming 
that  he  will  do  them.  He  "  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise 
up  children  to  Abraham,"  Matt.  iii.  9,  but  you  do  not  sup- 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  37 

pose  he  ever  loill  do  so.  So  soon  as  you  present  your  ar- 
guments in  proof  that  gehenna  is  in  the  immortal  state  of 
existence,  and  that  there  soul  and  body  unll  he  destroyed,  I 
will  attend  to  your  reasoning — but  I  am  not  willing  to 
rest  the  controversy  on  your  apprehension  of  the  signifi- 
cation of  a  text. 

Ezekiel  xviii.  31,  32  :  xxxiii.  11 :  You  say,  and  correctly, 
that  "  natural  death,  or  the  dissolution  of  soul  and  body 
is  inevitable" — but  it  does  not  follow  that  death  by  famine, 
pestilence,  and  the  sword,  was  inevitable  to  the  house  of 
Israel — nor  that  "  a  spiritual,  second,  and  everlasting  death 
in  sin  and  to  all  holiness,"  is  spoken  of  in  the  passage 
referred  to.  I  do  not  find  the  word  spiritual  in  either  of 
those  passages,  nor  do  I  find  aught  said  about  a  "  second 
and  everlasting  death."  Nor  have  you  furnished  any 
proof  that  such  a  death  is  intended.  And  allow  me  to 
assure  you,  that  if  you  "  had  the  sentiments  of  Univer- 
salists,"  you  Avouldnot  have  the  sliglitest  cause  to  address 
the  Deity  in  the  manner  you  have  stated.  As  we  propose 
basing  our  discussion  on  proofs,  I  shall  expect  you  to  fur- 
nish your  reasons  for  supposing  that  "  a  spiritual,  second, 
and  everlasting  death"  is  taught  in  the  cited  passages. 

Rev.  xxi.  7,  8  :  This  passage  speaks  of  "  the  lake  that 
burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone ;  which  is  the  second 
death."  You  have  a  very  summary  method  of  proving 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  You  say  that  "  here 
the  pen  of  inspiration  has  drawn  a  contrast  between  (he 
future  state  of  one  who  overcometh  this  sinful  world,  and 
persons  of  a  different  character."  Yet  you  have  not  so 
much  as  attempted  to  prove  that  the  future  $tate  is  referred 
to !  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  much  about  the  Apocalypse, 
and  must  therefore  request  you  to  furnish  your  reasons  for 
supposing  that  this  lake  of  fire  is  in  the  eternal  world.  In 
Rev.  xix.  we  read  of  eating  the  flesh  of  kings  and  others — of 
a  battle  between  the  beast  and  him  that  sat  on  the  horse 
and  their  respective  armies — that  the  beast  and  false 
prophet  were  cast  alive  into  "a  lake  of  fire  burnino;  loith 
hrimstone,^^  and  that  "  the  remnant  were  slain,  and  all  the 
fowls  were  filled  with  their  flesh."  I  can  see  no  propriety 


38  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSIO?T. 

in  referriag  such  language  to  a  future  state.  Nor  indeed 
do  I  see  the  propriety  of  urging  so  confessedly  hyperbo- 
lical a  book  as  the  Apocalypse  in  proof  of  any  impor- 
tant doctrine. 

As  you  acknowledge  that  poetry  proves  nothing,  I  need 
not  notice  the  stanzas  you  have  quoted.  In  discussing 
the  question  before  us,  I  wish  to  have  nothing  to  do  with* 
the  sallies  of  poetical  imagination. 

"The poet's  eye,  in  a  fine  phrensy  rolling, 

Doth  glance  from  earth  to  heaven,  ijjom  heaven  to  earth: 

And  as  imagination  bodies  forth 

The  forms  of  things  unkvoirn,  the  poet's  pen 

Turns  them  to  shapes,  and  gives  to  airy  nothing 

A  local  habitation,  and  a  name." 

Matt.  xiii.  3S — 43 :  In  your  remarks  on  the  parable 
of  the  good  seed  and  the  tares,  you  have  assumed  two  im- 
portant points :  1st.  That  by  the  phrase  "  end  of  the 
world,"  is  signified  the  destruction  of  the  material  world. 
Are  you  aware  that  two  words  of  essentially  different  sig- 
nification are  each  translated  ico7^ld  in  the  parable  before 
us  ?  "  The  field  is  the  icorld,^^  (/cd(r//os.)  "  The  end  of  the 
world,"  [aiiovdi.'j  On  the  latter  phrase,  Pearce  says, 
"  Rather  end  of  this  age,  viz.  that  of  the  JcAvish  dispen- 
sation." And  on  verse  41,  "  This  is  spoken,  not  of  what 
shall  happen  at  the  end  of  the  [material]  world,  but  what 
was  to  happen  at  the  end  or  destruction  of  the  JcAvish 
state."  The  same  phrase  occurs  in  Matt.  xxiv.  3;  1  Cor. 
X.  11 ;  Heb.  ix.  26.  In  the  latter  it  is  said  that  Jesus 
"appeared  in  the  end  of  the  loorld  [age  or  dispensation] 
to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  I  need  not 
enlarge. 

2d.  You  assume  that  the  furnace  of  fire,  spoken  of  in 
the  parable,  is  in  the  eternal  world.  You  are  aware  that 
Egypt  is  called  a  furnace,  Jer.  xi.  4.  And  it  is  said, 
Isa.  xxi.  9,  "  He  shall  pass  over  to  his  strong  hold  for 
fear,  and  his  princes  shall  be  afraid  of  the  ensign,  saith 
the  Lord,  whose  fire  is  in  Zion,  and  his  furnace  in  Jeru- 
salem."   And  again,  Ezek.  xxii.  18 — 22,  "Son  of  man, 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  39 

llie  house  of  Israel  is  to  me  become  dross ;  all  they  are 
brass,  and  tin,  and  iron,  and  lead,  in  the  midst  of  the'  fur- 
nace  1  will  g^xher  yon  into  the  7nidst  of  Je' 

nusALEM.  As  they  gather  silver  and  brass  into  tlie  midst 
of  the  FURNACE,  to  blow  the  fire  upon  it  to  melt  it;  so  will 
I  gather  you  in  mine  anger  and  in  my  fury,  and  I  will 

leav.e  you  there  and  melt  you As  silver  is 

melted  in  the  midst  of  the  furnace^  so  shall  ye  be  melted 
in  the  midst  thereof,"  viz.  in  Jerusalem,  as  in  ver.  19. 

Moreover,  the  parable  says  that  "all  things  that  offend 
and  them  which  do  iniquity"  shall  be  gathered  ^^  out 
of  his  Jdngdom."  How  could  they  be  gathered  out  of  it^ 
if  they  were  never  in  it?  And  were  such  characters  ever 
in  the  kingdom  in  a  future  state  of  existence  ? 

I  have  thus  noticed  all  the  passages  you  have  adduced 
in  proof  of  endless  punishment.  I  regret  having  so  fre- 
quently found  it  necessary  to  call  your  attention  to  points 
which  you  have  not  attempted  to  prove.  It  is  presuma- 
ble that  neither  of  us  can  quote  a  Scripture  passage  of  the 
existence  of  which  the  other  is  ignorant.  Nor  can  either 
of  us  quote  a  passage  which  the  other  denies.  It  is  there- 
fore of  much  importance  that  the  bearing  of  every  pas- 
sage on  the  doctrine  it  is  quoted  to  establish  should  be 
clearly  pointed  out. 

As  our  object  is  not  useless  disputation,  I  shall  present 
only  a/tw  proofs  of  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all 
mankind,  in  each  letter — bein^  persuaded  that  such  a 
course  will  prevent  the  confusion  that  might  be  conse- 
quent of  citing  a  multiplicity  of  passages. 

Colossians  i.  19,  20  :  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that 
in  him  [Christ]  should  all  fulness  dwell;  and  having 
made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to  re- 
concile ALL  THINGS  unto  himsrjf ;  by  him,  I  say,  wheiher 
they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven."  In  my 
judgment,  this  passage  distinctly  teaches  the  final  holiness 
and  happiness  of  all  mankind — inasmuch  as  it  teaches 
the  reconciliation  of  all  things  to  God. 

From  the  language  of  the  text  I  feel  myself  authorized 
to  believe  and  teach,  that  it  as  perfectly  pleased  the  Fa- 


40  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

ther  "  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,"  as  It  did  that 
"in  Christ  should  all  fulness  dwell."  And  I  suppose  you 
do  not  feel  disposed  to  deny,  that  he  who  is  reconciled  to 
God  must  be  happy. 

If  it  be  objected,  as  it  probably  will,  that  the  phrase 
"  all  things  "  does  not  mean  all  mankind,  but  simply  be- 
lievers, I  reply,  1st.  That  the  reconciliation  of  believers 
is  specially  spoken  of  in  verse  21 :  "  And  you,  that  were 
sometime  alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked 
works,  yet  noiu  hath  he  reconciled.''''  This  special  recon- 
ciliation of  believers  cannot  justly  be  supposed  to  militate 
against  the  universal  reconciliation  before  spoken  of.  In. 
2  Cor.  V.  18,  19,  we  read :  "  And  all  things  are  of  God, 
who  HATH  reconciled  us  [believers]  to  himself  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion; to  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
WORLD  to  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto 
them."  By  whi'ch  non-imputation,  I  understand,  that 
God  did  not  consider  the  trespasses  of  the  world  any  ob- 
jection to  their  reconciliation — for  he  who  is  sinless  needs 
no  reconciliation. 

2d.  In  the  verses  preceding  the  text,  we  read  as  fol- 
lows :  "  For  by  him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in 
heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whe- 
ther they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or 
powers:  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him. 
and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  con- 
sist. And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church ;  who 
is  the  beginning,  the  first  born  from  the  dead;  that  in 
ALL  THINGS  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence," — and  then 
come  in  the  words  of  the  text.  In  the  above  quotation 
the  phrase  in  question  is  used  five  times — and  in  each 
of  these  instances  you  allow  that  the  meaning  is  unlim- 
ited. Why  then  limit  the  phrase  in  the  declaration,  "by 
him  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himself?'^  By  what  rule 
of  interpretation  would  you  feel  authorized  to  urge  a  lim- 
itation in  the  latter  instance,  while  you  acknowledge 
universality  in  the  former  ? 

Philippians    ii.   9—11,    "  Wherefore    God    also  hath 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  41 

highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name,  that  in  tlie  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things 
under  tlie  earth ;  and  that  ccenj  tongue  should  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 
If  the  phrases  "  every  knee,"  and  "  every  tongue,"  do  not 
express  unifcrsalit;/,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  words 
could  be  used  to  convey  the  idea. 

If  it  be  objected,  that  though  all  mankind  will  thus 
bow  the  knee  and  thus  confess,  many  will  do  it  unwil- 
lingly, and  to  their  own  shame  and  endless  condemnation, 
I  remark,  1st.  That  nothing  like  this  appears  on  the  face 
of  the  text.  We  are  not  certified  that  some  will  bow  and 
confess  willingly,  and  others  unwillingly — nor  tbat  some 
will  thus  bow  and  confess  to  their  eternal  happiness,  and 
others  to  their  endless  condemnation.  Far  from  it.  In 
whatever  manner  and  with  whatever  feelings,  one  will 
bow  and  confess,  "  ei:enj  knee  shall  bow  and  cvoy  tongue 
shall  confess."  2d.  The  text  does  not  inform  us  that  any 
will  bow  and  confess  that  Jesus  is  Lord  to  their  own 
endless  condemnation — but  ^'to  the  crlory  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther.""  And  we  read,  Psalm  1.  23,  "  Whoso  offereth  praise 
glorifieth  me."  And  surely  endless  condemnation  would 
not  be  subject  matter  of  praise.  We  further  read,  1  Cor. 
xii.  3,  "  No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by 
the  Holy  Spirit." 

In  concluding  this  letter,  let  me  affectionately  entreat 
you  and  all  our  readers,  to  receive,  believe  and  rejoice  in 
this  gracious  testimony.  The  precious  records  of  Divine 
love,  and  the  faithful  promises  of  our  God,  fill  my  own 
soul  with  the  peace  that  passeth  understanding.  And 
though  I  have  not  the  smallest  doubt  of  your  final  bless- 
edness in  Christ,  I  am  desirous  that  you  should  enjoy  the 
present  happiness  of  believing  in  the  ultimate  reconcilia- 
tion of  all  things.  Blessed  are  the  people  who  know  the 
joyful  sound.  They  walk  in  the  light  of  God's  counte- 
nance, and  thus  to  walk  is  heaven. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOBUS. 


42  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  March  7th,  1834. 
Dear  Sir — The  pages  of  the  Bible  are  so  replete  with 
the  doctrine,  that  some  of  our  race  die  in  their  iniquities, 
and  are  punished  in  the  future  state  of  being,  that  in  my 
former  letters  I  have  cited  passages  not  because  I  judged 
them  to  be  the  most  conclusive,  but  because  providen- 
tially my  eye  was  turned  upon  them  at  the  opening  of  the 
book. 

Frequently  the  simple  quotation  of  Scripture,  if  it  be 
understood  in  its  plain  and  obvious  meaning,  is  "  suffi- 
cient proof  of  a  position  ;"  and  commentary  and  criticism 
are  needful  to  those  alone  who  wish  to  believe  a  different 
doctrine  from  that  taught  by  the  holy  Spirit  of  inspira- 
tion. For  instance,  these  propositions,  "there  is  one 
God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men," — and 
"  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,"  are 
so  simple  and  conclusive,  that  none  but  an  Atheist  will 
require  elucidation  to  satisfy  him,  that  the  Bible  asserts 
the  being  of  one  God :  none  but  a  Romanist  will  need 
criticism  to  show  that  there  is  no  other  Mediator  than 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  none  but  a  Universalist  will 
demand  comment  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  ever- 
lasting punishment  of  the  wicked. 

That  there  are  many  texts  of  Scripture  which  require 
reference  to  the  context,  and  sometimes  to  the  original 
language  in  which  they  were  written,  that  we  may  ascer- 
tain their  meaning,  is  readily  granted.  Especially  has 
"  our  beloved  brother  Paul  also,  according  to  the  wisdom 
given  unto  him, — written  unto  you — some  things  hard  to 
be  miderstood,  which  they  that  are  unlearned  and  unsta- 
ble wrest,  as  they  do  also  the  other  Scriptures,  unto  their 
own  destruction;"  not  only  in  time^  as  you  admit,  but 
during  everlasting  ages. 

That  the  kingdom  of  God  sometimes  denotes  the  church 
in  the  world,  consisting  of  all  professors  of  the  true  reli- 
gion togetlier  with  their  children,  is  true  ;  but  it  also  sig- 
nifies that  domain  of  God  in  glory  which  is  called  heaven. 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  43 

Now  if  none  can  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  world 
without  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  surely  none  can  enter 
the  dome  of  the  king  in  glory  without  first  having  experi- 
enced a  spiritual  renovation. 

There  was  a  just  man  who  perished  in  his  righteousness, 
from  the  steamboat  William  Penn,  the  other  day ;  and 
the  righteous  perish  daily,  from  the  earth,  when  they  die ; 
but  surely  Christ  did  not  intend,  that  "  whosoever  believ- 
eth  in  him  should  not  perish  "  from  a  steamboat,  or  from 
the  face  of  the  earth.  Believers  as  well  as  unbelievers 
perish  from  the  earth,  by  heat,  cold,  fire,  water,  and  all  the 
procuring  causes  of  the  dissolution  of  soul  and  body.  To 
perish,  therefore,  does  not  in  every  instance  signify  to 
suffer  endless  punishment ;  but  when  one  is  threatened 
with  perdition  as  an  evil  the  very  opposite  of  everlasting 
life,  that  perishing  does  mean  nothing  else  but  everlasting 
death. 

Paul  speaks  of  the  dying  of  the  just  man,  which  is  his 
perishing  from  the  earth,  as  falling  asleep  in  Christ ;  and 
says,  that  if  there  be  no  resurrection,  "  then  they  also 
which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished,''^  1  Cor.  xv. 
18.  Now  if  to  perish  means  nothing  more  than  dyings 
then  you  would  make  Paul  say,  that  if  there  is  no  resur- 
rection, they  who  have  fallen  asleep,  i.  e.  died  in  Christ, 
have  died  !  Riul  was  not  wont  thus  to  trifle  by  repeat- 
ing truisms.  He  speaks  of  a  perdition  that  might  suc- 
ceed natural  death. 

When  Christ  foretold,  that  he  should  die,  that  believers 
should  not  perish,  he  referred  we  think,  to  the  "  perdition 
of  ungodly  men,"  (2  Peter  iii.  7,)  which  is  to  succeed 
"  the  day  of  judgment ;"  and  which  will  fulfil  the  predic- 
tions of  Scripture,  that  "  the  hypocrite's  hope  shall  per- 
ish," (Job  viii.  13 ;)  that  the  desire  of  the  wicked  shall 
perish,  while  the  righteous  shall  be  in  everlasting  remem- 
brance, (Ps.  cxii.  6,  10 ;)  that  he  who  speaketh  lies  shall 
perish,  (Prov.  xix.  9 ;)  and  that  many  other  persons 
"shall  utterly  perish  in  their  own  corruption."  Now 
if  the  perishing  here  denounced,  means  nothing  but  nat- 
ural death,  then  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  and  all 


44  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

mankind  alike,  are  to  perish  in  corruption,  and  to  experi- 
ence the  perdition  of  their  hopes  and  expectations. 

That  the  everlasting  life  which  believers  shall  experience 
in  "  a  future  imuiorlal  existence,"  is  begun  in  this  world, 
and  that  every  actual  believer  now  hath  it,  is  a  glorious 
truth.  All  who  have  believed,  and  they  alone,  have 
"passed  from  death  unto  life ;"  and  to  knoiv  God  and  Jesus 
Christ  aright,  not  only  secures,  but  so  far  as  spiritually 
knowing  is  concerned,  is  a  part,  an  incipient  portion, 
of  life  everlasting.  Because,  however,  believers  have  the 
promise  and  experience  of  everlasting  life,  begun  here, 
and  to  be  perpetuated  for  ever  in  a  future  state  of  exist- 
ence, it  does  not  folloAV  that  they  ivho  believe  not  have 
eternal  life  at  all.  Nor  is  it  true,  that  everlasting  life  is 
confined  to  the  present  world,  because  all  believers  have 
it  here.  On  the  other  hand,  the  very  words  teach  as 
clearly  as  language  can  speak,  that  the  holy,  spiritual 
living,  commenced  in  this  world,  shall  be  continued  so 
long  as  the  immortal  subjects  of  it  shall  endure. 

The  power  of  working  miracles  did  follow  many  that 
believed  the  gospel  in  the  first  age  of  the  Christian  church ; 
but  the  Saviour  never  promised  that  all  believers,  who 
shall  escape  damnation,  should  be  thus  endowed.  If  he 
had  said,  "  These  signs  shall  always  follow  every  one 
who  believeth,"  your  mode  of  explaining  away  the  decla- 
ration, "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  would 
have  been  useless. 

If  the  destroying  of  him  who  hardeneth  his  neck,  means 
nothing  but  "  that  death  was  inevitable,"  then  we  may 
read  Proverbs  xxix.  1,  in  this  manner,  "  he  that  being 
often  reproved  hardeneth  his  neck,  shall  suddenly  be  de- 
stroyed, and  that  without  remedy  ;  and  all  other  persons 
shall  be  destroyed  likewise ;  but  perhaps  not  suddenly ;" 
for  all,  of  every  name  and  character,  the  best  and  the 
worst,  will  find  that  death  is  inevitable.  This  mode  of  ex- 
plaining Scripture  would  make  every  threatening  and 
denunciation  of  evil  lose  its  force,  because  it  would  then 
bear  equally  against  all  men  who  must  die.  Such  a  result, 
no  doubt,  many  desire ;  for  thus  the  law  would  lose  all 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  45 

its  penal  sanctions,  and  the  righteous  and  the  wicked 
would  be  both  equally  saved  and  damned  together. 

God  is  able,  popularly  speaking,  it  is  true,  to  do  many 
things  which  he  will  never  do  ;  but  when  he  exhorted  his 
disciples  "  to  fear  him,  which  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul 
and  body  in  hell,"  we  must  think,  that  the  destruction 
did  not  mean  merely  natural  death ;  and  that  other  peo- 
ple who  are  not  his  disciples  have  quite  as  much  reason 
as  they  to  fear  the  same  doom ;  especially  when  he  in 
pursuing  his  discourse  said,  "Whosoever,  therefore,  shall 
confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny 
me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,"  Matthew  x.  32,  33.  To  be  denied, 
disowned,  and  rejected  of  Christ  before  his  Father  in  hea- 
ven, as  not  worthy  of  him,  nor  of  his  society,  is  a  con- 
stituent part  of  the  endless  punishment  which  is  elsewhere 
called  the  damnation  of  hell.  Can  you  think,  sir,  that  it 
would  consist  with  universal  salvation  for  Christ  to  dis- 
own or  deny  any  one,  before  his  Father  and  his  angels, 
saying,  as  he  has  said  he  will  to  the  unAvise  virgins,  "  I 
know  you  not  ?"  Matt.  xxv.  12. 

The  world  is  in  some  sense  Christ's  kingdom  ;  and  so 
is  the  Church  in  the  world ;  and  out  of  either  of  these  king' 
doms  of  God,  the  tares  may  be  gathered  to  be  burned. 
Their  having  been  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  God,  with- 
out serving  him  in  conformity  with  their  opportunities, 
will  render  the  flames  of  the  furnace  into  which  they 
shall  be  cast  more  intense.  You  say,  "  Be  it  noticed,  also, 
that  whatever  is  destroyed  ceases  to  exist,  and  of  course 
ceases  to  suffer  or  enjoy."  How  can  this  agree  with  ycur 
doctrine  of  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  man- 
kind in  a  future  state  ?  That  which  ceases  to  exist,  has 
no  existence  any  where ;  and  of  course,  when  the  Lord 
"  having  saved  the  people  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  after- 
ward destroyed  them  that  believed  not,"  (Jude  5,)  they 
ceased  to  exist ;  they  were  annihilated  ;  and  yet  agreeably 
to  your  teaching  they  were  made  finally  holy  and  happy. 
If  this  is  true,  then  your  final  state  of  blessedness  is  af 


46  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

firmed  of  that  which  is  not ;  and  your  heaven  must  be  a 
nonentity. 

The  passages  which  you  have  cited  or  may  cite  to 
prove  that  all  mankind  shall  experience  final  and  ever- 
lasting reconciliation  to  God  in  a  state  of  holy  happiness, 
I  propose  to  consider  in  some  future  letter.  At  present, 
I  shall  be  content  with  remarking,  that  when  the  sacred 
Scriptures  are  correctly  translated  and  interpreted,  no 
passage  can  contradict  any  other  passage ;  for  the  revela- 
tion of  God  to  man  must  be  consistent  with  itself.  No 
one  truth  can  ever  be  contravened  by  any  other  truth. 
So  long,  therefore,  as  we  do  not  make  two  seemingly  op- 
ponent passages  agree  in  sentiment,  it  is  manifest,  that 
we  mistranslate,  or  misinterpret,  or  misunderstand  either 
one  or  both  of  them.  The  system  of  Divine  revelation, 
whether  by  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind.  Divine 
providence,  or  the  written  oracles  of  the  Most  High,  is 
one  grand,  harmonious  whole. 

In  further  proof  of  the  punishment  of  some  sinners  af- 
ter the  present  life,  I  refer  you  to  a  few  additional  por- 
tions of  the  Bible.  Of  Christ  it  was  said  by  Moses, 
"  every  soul  which  will  not  hear  that  prophet,  shall  be  de- 
stroyed from  among  the  people,"  Acts  iii.  23.  If  this 
meant  natural  death,  then  all  who  hear  and  all  who  hear 
not  that  prophet,  die,  and  are  destroyed  without  distinc- 
tion. If  a  violent  death,  or  death  by  famine,  or  pesti- 
lence, was  threatened,  all  who  heard  not  that  prophet 
were  not  thus  destroyed  either  from  the  Hebrew  church, 
or  from  the  earth. 

"  When  the  wicked  spring  as  the  grass,  and  when  all 
the  workers  of  iniquity  do  flourish ;  it  is  that  they  shall 
be  destroyed  for  ever,"  Psalm  xcii.  7.  If  you  say  that  this 
destruction  refers  wholly  to  this  life,  then  the  wicked  and 
righteous  fare  alike ;  while  the  text  evidently  was  in- 
tended to  show,  that  when  it  shall  be  u-dl  with  the  latter, 
it  shall  be  z7Z  with  the  former.  Such  attempts  to  prove, 
that  being  destroyed  for  ever  is  nothing  more  than  the  na- 
tural death  appointed  for  all  men,  I  fear  will  come  under 
the  condemnation  of  Malachi  ii.  17,  in  which  place  it  is 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 


47 


written,  "  Ye  have  wearied  the  Lord  with  your  words. 
Yet  ye  say,  wherein  have  we  wearied  him  ?  When  ye 
say,  every  one  that  doeth  evil  is  good  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord,  and  he  delightelli  in  them ;  or,  where  is  the  God  of 
judgment  ?"  If  there  are,  or  ever  have  been  people  on 
earth  to  whom  these  words  are  applicable,  I  mean  no 
personal  disrespect  when  I  say,  they  must  be  to  those 
who  deny  any  future  judgment  and  perdition  of  ungodly 
men.  "  Yet  a  little  while,  and  he  that  shall  come  will 
come,  and  will  not  tarry.  Now  the  just  shall  live  by 
faith;  [or  rather,  the  just  by  faith  shall  live,']  hut  if  any 
man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him. 
But  we  are  not  of  them  who  draw  back  unto  perdition  ; 
but  of  them  that  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul,"  Heb. 
X.  37 — 39.  Here  perdition  is  contrasted  with  the  savin  ir  of 
the  soul;  and  evidently  means  the  not  saving  or  ihe^oss 
of  it-,  concerning  which  the  Saviour  has  aslced,  "  What 
shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose 
his  own  soul  ?" 

To  you  and  all  our  readers,  I  would  say,  "  Enter  ye  in 
at  the  strait  gate ;  for  wide  is  the  gate  and  broad  is  the 
way  that  leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  there  be  which 
go  in  thereat :  because  strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is 
the  way  that  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find 
it,"  Matt.  vii.  13, 14. 

Remembering  "  that  it  is  as  far  from  your  house  to 
mine,  as  from  mine  to  yours,"  I  continue  yours  with  the 
best  wishes, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  March  15,  1854. 
Dear  Sir — There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  some  cases, 
the  quotation  of  Scripture,  "  if  it  be  understood  in  its 
plain  and  obvious  meaning,"  is  sufficient  proof  of  a  po- 
sition.    But  in  the  discussion  of  the  all-important  ques^ 


48  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

tion  before  us,  something  more  than  the  simple  citarion 
of  the  written  testimony  will  be  required.  We  may  mul- 
tiply quotations  from  the  Bible — but  if  we  make  no  at- 
tempt to  show  their  bearing  on  the  matter  in  hand,  our 
labour  will  be  in  vain ;  and  we  would  respectively  be 
justified,  in  the  light  of  all  equitable  rules  of  argumenta- 
tion, were  we  severally  to  refrain  from  offering  a  word  of 
comment  on  the  passages  so  quoted. 

The  second  paragraph  of  your  letter,  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, very  exceptionable.  Suppose  that,  in  my  previous 
communication,  I  had  written  as  follows  :  "  These  propo- 
sitions,— '  there  is  one  God  and  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a 
ransom  for  all  men  to  be  testified  in  due  time,'  and 
*  it  pleased  the  Father  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  to 
himself — are  so  simple  and  conclusive,  that  none  but  an 
Atheist  will  require  elucidation  to  satisfy  him  that  the 
Bible  asserts  the  being  of  one  God;  none  but  a  Trinita- 
rian will  need  criticism  to  show  that  God  is  indirisihljj  one, 
and  Jesus  Christ  a  man;  and  none  but  a  Partialist  will 
demand  comment  to  establish  the  reconciliation  of  all 
things."  If  I  had  penned  a  paragraph  like  the  foregoing, 
you  would  most  probably  have  proceeded  to  inform  me, 
that  Trinitarians  believe  God  to  be  essentially  one;  that 
in  their  view  Jesus  Christ  was  both  God  and  man,  by  hy- 
postatical  union  ;  and  that  they  do  not  suppose  the  recon- 
ciliation of  all  things  to  contradict  the  everlasting  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked.  And  you  would  have  closed  the 
merited  rebuke,  by  cautioning  me  against  using  language 
which  might  be  retorted. 

Now  be  it  remembered,  that  Universalists  most  sin- 
cerely believe  all  that  the  Bible  says  about  everlasting 
punishment.  We  have  ever  held,  (and  I  am  happy  in 
being  enabled  to  adopt  your  own  language,)  "  that  when 
the  sacred  Scriptures  are  correctly  translated  and  inter- 
preted, no  passage  can  contradict  any  other  passage ;  for 
the  revelation  of  God  to  man  must  be  consistent  with  it- 
self. No  one  truth  can  ever  be  contravened  by  any  other 
truth.     So  long,  therefore,  as  we  do  not  make  two  seem- 


'  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  49 

ingly  opponent  passages  agree  in  sentiment,  it  is  manifest 

that  we  mistranslate,  or  misinterpret,  or  misunderstand 
either  one  or  both  of  them.  The  system  of  Divine  Reve- 
lation, Avhether  by  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind, 
Divine  Providence,  or  the  Avritten  oracles  of  the  Most 
High,  is  one  grand  harmonious  whole." 

There  is  another  item  in  your  second  paragraph,  which 
demands  a  passing  notice.  You  say,  that  "commentary 
and  criticism  are  needful  to  those  alone  who  wish  to  be- 
lieve a  different  doctrine  from  that  taught  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  inspiration."  From  the  connexion  in  which 
this  sentence  occurs,  the  intimation  is  obvious,  that  in 
your  opinion,  the  Atheist,  the  Romanist,  and  the  Univer- 
salist,  are  equally  desirous  to  "  believe  a  different  doctrine 
from  that  taught"  in  the  Bible.  If  there  was  either  ar- 
gument or  propriety  in  such  imputations,  no  good  reason 
could  be  assigned  why  either  of  us  should  not  resort  to 
them.  Why  should  you  class  the  Universalist  with  the 
Atheist  and  the  Romanist  ?  I  might  with  equal  propriety 
and  civility,  class  the  Presbyterian  with  the  Pantheist 
and  the  Mormonite.  But  what  argument  would  this  pro- 
cedure furnish  ?  Nothing  farther,  than  that  I  was  willing 
to  disregard  the  injunctions  of  the  charity  that  thinketh 
lio  evil,  in  order  to  perpetuate  the  prejudices  of  sectari- 
anism. 

I  do  respectfully  assure  you  that  Universalists  have  no 
desire  to  "  believe  a  different  doctrine  from  that  taught  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  inspiration."  "We  solemnly  believe 
that  the  Holy  Scriptures  most  unequivocally  teach  the 
doctrine  of  the  final  reconciliation  of  all  things.  No- 
thing that  we  can  imagine  would  be  more  desirable,  and 
for  nothing  better  do  we  wish.  And  if  we  feel  disposed 
to  consult  "  commentary  and  criticism,"  in  elucidation  of 
the  truth  of  heaven,  we  must  consult  the  works  of  your 
(mm  commentators  and  critics.  You  do  not  suppose  that 
they  desired  to  believe  what  the  Holy  Spirit  had  not  re- 
vealed— nor  can  you,  with  any  plausibility,  charge  the 
Universalist  v/ith  such  a  desire,  when  the  energies  of  his 
mind  are  devoted  to  an  examination  of  the  word  of  God; 
5 


50  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

and  when  he  calls  to  his  aid  the  commentaries  and  criti- 
cisms of  LiGHTFOoT,  Pearce,  Whitby,  Horne,  Mac- 
KNiGHT,and  others,  whose  piety  will  not  be  called  in  ques- 
tion. 

You  readily  grant,  that  "  there  are  many  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture which  require  reference  to  the  context,  and  some- 
times to  the  original  language  in  which  they  were  writ- 
ten, that  we  may  ascertain  their  meaning."  Then  why 
find  fault  with  me  for  consulting  the  connexion  of  the 
passages  by  you  cited  in  a  former  letter  ?  Will  you  al- 
lege that  it  is  because  those  passages,  "  in  their  plain 
and  obvious  meaning,"  teach  the  doctrine  of  endless  pun- 
ishment? Give  me  leave  to  state  that,  in  relation  to 
many  of  the  passages  you  have  quoted,  the  best  orthodox 
critics  and  commentators  the  world  has  ever  produced, 
are  decidedly  against  you.  But  aside  from  all  this,  I  re- 
mark, that,  with  the  exception  of  some  of  the  purposely 
disconnected  Avritings  of  Solomon,  every  portion  of  the 
Bible  should  be  considered  with  especial  reference  to  the 
connexion  in  which  it  stands. 

In  quoting  part  of  a  sentence  in  Matt,  xxv.,  "  these 
shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,"  you  intimate 
that  this  declaration,  "  if  it  be  understood  in  its  plain 
and  obvious  meaning,"  is  sufficient  proof  of  endless  pun- 
ishment. It  may  be  sufficient  proof  to  convince  your  own 
mind — but  you  are  not  writing  to  convince  yourself,  nor 
indeed  to  convince  any  one  who  is  already  convinced.  In 
order  to  convince  me  and  the  thousands  of  Universalists 
who  read  our  letters,  you  should  have  proceeded  to  show 
when  and  ivhere  the  judgment  spoken  of  in  Matt,  xxiv  and 
xxv  was  to  take  place ;  and  you  should  also  have  brought 
into  view  the  circumstances  by  which  the  discourse  com- 
mencing Matt.  xxiv.  4,  was  elicited.  I  hope  you  will  at- 
tend to  this  suggestion. 

Speaking  of  those  who  wrest  the  Scriptures,  "  unto 
their  own  destruction,"  you  remark,  "  not  only  in  time^ 
as  you  admit,  but  during  everlasting  oges^  Of  this  you 
have  not  furnished  a  word  of  proof. 

You  have  not  yet  attempted  to  show  that  the  phrase 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  51 

Jcin^dom  of  God,  in  John  iii.  3,  "  signifies  that  domain  of 
God  in  glory  which  is  called  heaven."  On  a  re-examina- 
tion of  your  remarks,  you  will  discover  that  your  argU" 
merit  is  predicated  of  your  opinion.  I  have  never  supposed 
that  any  one  can  enjoy  the  beatitude  of  immortality  with- 
out "a  spiritual  renovation."  You  suppose,  however, 
that  they  who  do  not  enter  the  gospel  kingdom  in  this 
world,  will  be  eternally  wretched  in  the  next — which  re- 
mains to  be  proved. 

That  "  believers  as  well  as  unbelievers  perish  from  the 
earth  by  heat,  cold,  fire,  water,"  &c,  is  most  true — but  I 
do  not  find  it  written  that  believers  thus  perish  because  of 
their  sins.  The  testimony  of  our  Lord,  in  Luke  xiii.  1 — 
5,  affords  some  light  on  this  subject.  Jesus  was  told  of 
certain  "  Galileans  whose  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with 
their  sacrifices,"  and  he  took  the  opportunity  to  say,  "  Sup- 
pose ye  that  these  Galileans  were  sinners  above  all  the 
Galileans,  because  they  suffered  such  things  ?  I  tell  you, 
Nay ;  but  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  [in  like 
manner]  pei-ish.  Or  those  eighteen,  upon  whom  the  tower 
in  Siloam  fell,  and  slew  them,  think  ye  that  they  were 
sinners  above  all  men  that  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  ?  I  tell 
you,  Nay  ;  but  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise ;)cm/?." 
If  Jesus  had  intended  to  teach  endless  punishment,  he 
surely  would  not  have  introduced  the  cases,  with  special 
reference  to  which  he  added  the  solemn  warning  above 
noticed.  He  spake  of  perishing  liJccwise,  in  case  of  im- 
penitence— and  there  he  left  the  matter,  without  so  much 
as  hinting  at  a  retribution  in  the  future  world. 

It  is  true,  that  in  John  iii.  16,  perishing  is  placed  m 
opposition  to  the  possession  of  everlasting  life — but  you 
have  not  quoted  a  single  passage  in  proof  that  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  everlasting  life  in  reference  to  the  immortal'exist- 
ence.  You  say,  indeed,  that "  the  very  words  teach  as  clear- 
ly as  language  can  speak,  that  the  holy  spiritual  living  com- 
menced in  this  world,  shall  be  continued  so  long  as  tne 
immortal  subjects  of  it  shall  endure" — but  you  cannot 
reasonably  expect  that  I  should  thence  infer  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment.    If  you  are  correct  in  this  mat- 


59  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

ter,  you  can  easily  furnish  "  the  law  and  the  testimony" 
as  vouchers.  I  beg  of  you  to  adduce  the  passages  in 
which  the  phrase  in  question  is  supposed  to  confirm  your 
view  of  the  subject.  You  admit  that  the  believer  hath 
ei-erlasting  life — but  is  it  thence  to  be  inferred  that  a  part 
of  mankind  shall  suffer  endless  punishment? 

I  think  your  citation  of  1  Cor.  xv.  18,  was  unfortunate 
for  the  position  you  have  taken  in  relation  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  perish.  You  think  that  Paul  there  "  speaks 
of  a  perdition  that  might  succeed  natural  death."  In  this 
case  we  ought  to  read,  that  if  there  be  no  resurrection,  then 
they  also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  eternally 
damned!  Surely  the  premises  do  not  justify  this  appalling 
conclusion.  In  my  judgment,  Paul  intended  to  say,  that 
if  Christ  was  not  risen,  there  was  no  ground  to  hope  that 
even  those  who  had  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  would  ever  be 
raised  from  the  dead. 

As  to  the  "  perdition  of  ungodly  men,"  2  Peter  iii.  7, 
and  "  the  day  of  judgment"  mentioned  in  connexion  there- 
with, I  may  simply  remark,  that  the  future  reference  of 
the  latter  phrase  remains  to  be  proved.  And  as  to  the 
perishing  of  the  hypocrite's  hope,  Job  viii.  13,  and  of  the 
desire  of  the  wicked,  Ps.  cxii.  6,  this  does  not  establish 
the  endless  punishment  either  of  the  hypocrite  himself  ox 
of  the  u-icked.  The  additional  verses  you  have  cited,  in 
which  the  word  perish  happens  to  occur,  need  not  be  spe- 
cially noticed.  You  might  quote  scores  of  equally  irrele- 
vant passages. 

The  connexion  of  Mark  xvi.  16,  is  very  explicit — 
"These  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe."  If  you 
confine  those  signs  to  the  age  of  miracles,  to  the  same 
age  the  particular  condemnation  spoken  of  must  also  be 
confined. 

You  have  not  correctly  understood  my  remarks  on 
Proverbs  xxix.  I.  And  yet  I  see  not  how  you  could  have 
misapprehended  mymeaning.  I  quoted  Prov.  vi.  15,  and 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  16,  17,  (in  which  passages  phraseology 
similar  to  the  language  of  the  text  occurs)  in  order  to  show 
ihat  premature  natural  death  was  the  declared  conse- 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  53 

qucnco  of  iniquity,  according  to  the  representation  of 
Solomon.  Your  remark,  that,  "  all,  of  every  name  and 
character,  the  best  and  the  worst,  will  find  that  death  is 
inevitable,"  has  no  bearing  on  the  question.  To  place 
this  matter  in  its  proper  light,  Ave  should  remember  that 
David  and  Solomon  considered  long  life  a  blessing  attend- 
ant on  righteousness.  "  With  long  life  will  I  satisfy  him, 
and  show  him  my  salvation,"  Psalm  xci.  16.  "  The  Lord 
will  preserve  him,  and  keep  him  alive,  and  he  shall  be 
blessed  upon  the  earth''  Psalm  xli.  2.  Of  wisdom  it  was 
said,  '^Length  of  days  is  in  her  right  hand,"  Prov.  iii.  10. 
"  Hear,  0  my  son,  and  receive  my  sayings,  and  the  years 
of  thy  life  shall  be  many,"  Prov.  iv.  10.  Indeed,  the 
first  commandment  with  promise,  had  the  blessing  an- 
nexed, "  that  thy  days  may  be  long  in  the  land."  I  might 
fill  a  column  with  similar  proofs.  Now  in  opposition  to 
length  of  days  as  the  promised  reward  of  righteousness, 
premature  death,  or  destruction  from  the  earth,  is  spoken 
of  as  the  consequence  of  iniquity.  Your  insinuation 
that  Universalists  desire  the  law  to  lose  its  penal  sanc- 
tions, passes  for  no  more  than  it  is  worth. 

In  relation  to  what  our  Saviour  said  about  confessing 
or  denying  him,  it  should  be  noticed,  that  the  object  of 
his  discourse,  of  which  that  was  a  constituent  part,  was 
to  strengthen  and  encourage  his  disciples  in  the  perform- 
ance of  the  duty  assigned  them.  They  were  to  go  forth 
and  preach  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom.  They  would  en- 
counter much  opposition  and  persecution — but  they  were 
still  to  be  faithful.  They  were  not  to  be  ashamed  of  or 
deny  their  Master.  In  case  they  denied  him,  he  would 
deny  them — if  they  were  ashamed  of  him  he  would  be 
ashamed  of  them.  '"  Whosoever  therefore  shall  be  asham- 
ed of  me  and  of  my  words  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful 
generation,  of  him  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed, 
when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy 
angels.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  That  there  be  some  of 
them  that  stand  here,  which  sliall  not  taste  of  death,  till 
they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power,' 
viii.  38,  ix.  1.  [Compare  Matt.  xvi.  27,  28,  xxiv. 
5^ 


54  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

29—34.]  These  passages  are  parallel  with  Matt.  x.  32,  33, 
and  fully  explain  the  time  when  the  denial  was  to  take  place, 
and  tchere.  It  was  at  that  time  he  would  say  to  the  fool- 
ish virgins,  "  I  know  you  not,"  Matt.  xxv.  12.  I  earnestly 
request  you  to  avoid  assuming  that  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  man,  so  frequently  spoken  of  by  our  Lord,  is  a 
yet  future  event.  In  Matt.  x.  23,  from  which  chapter  you 
have  quoted  two  verses  about  denyingV)r  confessing  the 
Master,  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples,  "  When  they  perse- 
cute you  in  this  city  flee  ye  into  another;  for  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  ye  shall  not  have  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel, 
till  the  Son  of  man  be  co7neJ'  And  then  follow  the  instruc- 
tions before  referred  to. 

In  commenting  on  my  remarks  on  the  parable  of  the 
tares,  you  do  not  attempt  to  show  that  I  erred  in  relation 
to  the  time  signified  by  the  phrase  end  of  the  icorld  ;  and 
you  proceed  at  once  to  assume  that  \\\e  furnace  spoken  of 
is  in  the  immortal  state  of  existence.  Prove  this  point 
and  I  will  yield  the  argument. 

When  I  said,  that  "  whatever  is  destroyed  ceases  to 
exist,  and  of  course  ceases  to  suffer  or  enjoy,"  I  had  in 
view  your  supposition  that  the  destruction  of  soul  and 
body  belonged  to  a  future  state.  When  the  body  ceases 
to  exist  as  such,  it  ceases  as  such  to  suffer  or  enjoy  ;  and 
if  the  spirit  as  such  be  destroyed,  as  a  spirit  it  can  nei- 
ther suffer  nor  enjoy.  When  the  Lord,  "  having  saved 
the  people  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  afterwards  destroyed 
them  that  believed  not,"  they  were  simply  destroyed 
as  men  in  the  flesh — they  were  taken  aAvay  from  the 
earth — but  what  has  this  to  do  with  a  future  state  of 
existence  ?  If  you  can  prove  that  they  were  destroyed 
in  a  future  state,  then  I  Avill  acknowledge  that  they  were 
annihilated — and  in  this  event,  it  would  be  as  foolish  in 
you  to  assert  their  endless  punishment,  as  in  me  to  affirm 
their  final  holiness  and  happiness. 

These  remarks  will  equally  apply  to  Psalm  xcii.  7, 
which  you  quote.  If  you  insist  that  the  being  destroyed 
for  ever  there  spoken  of,  refers  to  the  future  state,  you 
must  be  understood  to  teach  the  annihilation^  and  not  the 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  55 

endless  punishment  of  the  wicked.  I  might  refer  you  to 
Ezek.xiii.  22,  with  no  less  impropriety  than  you  can  me 
to  IVIalachi  ii.  17. 

As  to  Acts  iii.  23, 1  remark,  that  Peter  must  not  be  un- 
derstood to  attach  a  meaning  to  the  language  of  Mo- 
ses that  Moses  never  intended  to  convey.  If  you  are 
disposed,  you  may  consult  Deut.  xviii.  15 — 20.  I  ask 
you  to  quote  a  single  passage  from  all  that  was  commu- 
nicated to  Moses  at  Horeb,  in  which  any  thing  like  future 
punishment  is  so  much  as  clearly  intimated.  To  destroy 
a  man  from  among  the  people,  plainly  signifies  no  more 
than  to  cut  him  off  from  the  land  of  the  living.  (See 
Lev.  xviii.  29.) 

Heb.  X.  37 — 39:  That  ^^  perdition  is  here  contrasted 
with  the  saving  of  the  soul,^^  is  certainly  true ;  and  I 
freely  allow  that  it  "  evidently  means  the  7iot  saving,  or 
the  loss  of  it,  concerning  which  the  Saviour  has  asked, 
'  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world 
and  lose  his  own  soul  V  "  The  latter  quotation  is  from 
Mark  viii.  36.  But  do  you  seriously  suppose  that  the 
•word  soi(^  here  used  signifies  more  than  natural  life  ?  In  the 
Terse  preceding,  precisely  the  same  original  word  is  twice 
used,  and  is  translated  life  in  both  cases.  So  also  in  Matt, 
xvi.  25,  though  in  verse  26,  as  in  the  text  above  it,  it  is 
^rendered  soul.  The  plain  meaning  is,  "  What  shall  it 
profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own 
life  ?  or  what  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  life  ?" 
;So  Pearce,  Clarke,  and  others. 

You  have  cited  Matt.  vii.  13,  14,  without  comment. 
Why  is  this  so  ?  I  knew  that  passage  was  in  the  Bible 
before  I  saw  it  in  your  letter.  I  will  acknowledge  that 
you  are  right  and  I  am  Avrong,  if  you  will  prove,  1st. 
That  the  destruction  there  mentioned  signifies  endless  pun- 
ishment ;  and  2d.  That  the  life  there  spoken  of  is  the 
blessedness  of  immortality. 

I  regret  that  you  have  not  deemed  it  expedient  to  no- 
tice the  passages  by  me  cited  in  my  last  letter,  with  the 
comments  thereon,  in  proof  of  the  final  holiness  and  hap- 
piness of  all  mankind.    You  promise,  however,  to  attend 


tPS  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

to  them  in  some  future  communication — but  it  appears 
to  me  that  it  would  be  mtII  for  us  respectively  to  finish 
our  work  as  we  proceed.  Whatever  course  you  may 
think  proper  to  pursue,  I  shall  continue,  as  opportunity 
presents,  to  furnish  the  Divine  testimony  in  proof  of  the 
eventual  blessedness  in  Christ  of  the  whole  human  fa- 
mily. 

1  Cor.  XV.  22  :  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ 
^hall  all  be  made  alive.  By  dying  in  Adam,  I  understand 
dying  in  the  mortal  constitution  of  the  first  man,  who 
^vas  of  the  earth,  earthy — and  by  being  made  alive  in 
Christ,  I  understand  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  in  the 
image  of  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

That  the  death  in  Adam  is  a  natural  death,  you  will 
Tidmit — and  that  the  chapter  in  which  the  text  occurs, 
treats  of  a  resurrection  into  an  immortal  existence,  will 
not  be  disputed. 

The  word  all  in  the  latter  clause  of  the  sentence,  is  co- 
extensive in  signification  with  the  word  all  in  the  first 
clause.  As  many  as  die  in  Adam,  will  be  made  alive  in 
•Christ — for  the  declaration  is,  "  even  so." 

If  it  be  objected  that  all  do  not  die  in  Adam,  inasmuch 
as  Enoch  and  Elijah  were  translated,  I  reply,  1st.  They 
must  have  undergone  a  change  equivalent  to  death  ;  and 
2d.  They  who  in  no  sense  die  in  Adam,  if  any,  will  not 
Tequire  a  resurrection. 

If  you  say  that  believers  only  shall  be  made  alive  in 
Christ,  I  remark,  1st.  The  text  says  nothing  about  be- 
lievers, but  simply  that  "  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  2d.  If  none  but  believers 
die  in  Adam,  then  none  but  believers  shall  be  made  alive 
in  Christ. 

If  it  be  objected,  that  the  text  simply  states,  that  all 
men  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead,  I  answer,  that  "  all 
shall  be  made  alive  in  Christ."  And  "  if  any  man  he  m 
Christ  he  is  a  new  creature,  old  things  are  passed  away, 
"behold  all  things  are  become  new,"  2  Cor.  v.  17. 

Moreover,  Paul  says,  it  is  sown  in  corruption,  dishon 
-our,  and  weakness;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption,  glory  and 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  57 

power ;  it  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual 
body.  All  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy ;  and  all 
shall  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly. 

If  it  be  objected  that  Paul  says,  "  But  every  man  in  his 
own  order  :  Christ  the  first-fruits ;  afterward  they  that 
arc  Christ's  at  his  coming" — I  remark  that  the  apostle 
adds,  "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  deliv- 
ered up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father  ;  when  he 
shall  have  put  down  all  rule,  and  all  authority  and  power. 
For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his 
feet.  .  .  .  And  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued 
vnto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto 
him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  GOD  MAY  BE 
ALL  IN  ALL."     Amen,  Alleluia  ! 

Remembering,  as  I  do,  "  that  it  is  as  far  from  your 
house  to  mine,  as  from  mine  to  yours" — or  in  other  words, 
that  your  opinions  differ  as  widely  from  mine  as  mine 
do  from  yours — I  cordially  reciprocate  your  good  wishes, 
and  remain, 

Respectfully  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOIMAS. 

Philadelphia,  April  3d,  1834. 

Dear  Sir — I  have  refrained  from  replying  to  many 
things  contained  in  your  letters,  not  from  disrespect,  but 
from  a  desire  to  avoid  undesirable  length  in  any  one  of  ray 
communications.  At  present  I  will  refer  to  some  of  your 
past  quotations  and  remarks. 

To  prove  that  there  shall  be  no  punishment  beyond  the 
present  life,  you  have  quoted  Prov.  xi.  31 :  "  Behold  the 
righteous  shall  be  recompensed  in  the  earth :  much  more 
the  wicked  and  the  sinner."  Now  it  will  not  follow  from 
the  fact  that  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  meet  with  a 
suitable  recompense  on  the  earth,  that  they  will  not 
also  meet  with  a  similar  course  of  dealing  from  their  Ma- 


TO  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

ker  in  the  future  state  of  existence.  The  fact  of  their 
being  recompensed  here,  furnishes  one  of  the  strongest 
probabilities  that  they  will  also  be  recompensed  hereafter; 
for  why  should  God,  who  now  makes  the  way  of  the 
transgressors  hard,  render  it  in  future  more  pleasant  ? 
If  his  justice  and  goodness  now  require  him  to  punish 
transgressors  and  reward  the  obedient,  these  attributes 
remaining  the  same  will  for  ever  secure  similar  results. 
An  unchanging  God,  whose  principles  of  moral  govern- 
ment are  fixed,  and  who  recompenses  men  according  to 
their  conduct  now,  will  certainly  treat  them  according  to 
their  respective  characters  in  all  future  titnes.  Before 
this  passage  can  be  of  any  avail  to  the  cause  of  Univer- 
salism,  it  must  be  shown  that  God  fully,  and  perfectly 
punishes  all  the  wicked,  and  all  sinners,  in  the  earth  for 
all  the  sins  they  have  committed  or  ever  will  commit,  so 
(hat  justice  can  inflict  no  more  penalty  upon  them. 

It  is  not  true,  that  in  the  earth,  or  in  the  present  life, 
perfect  distributive  justice  takes  place.  The  righteous, 
as  a  general  rule,  find  wisdom's  ways  to  be  pleasantness, 
and  godliness  to  be  profitable  unto  all  things ;  but  still 
there  are  numerous  instances  in  which  they  are  injured 
and  oppressed,  and  spend  nearly  the.  whole  of  their  lives 
in  suffering.  On  the  other  hand,  the  wicked  generally 
experience  the  way  of  transgressors  to  be  hard,  and  vice 
to  bring  in  itself  much  misery ;  and  yet  in  many  cases 
the  wicked  prosper,  triumph,  and  die  with  their  bones  full 
of  marrow,  and  with  hearts  at  ease  in  stupidity.  The 
text  cited  from  Proverbs,  therefore,  cannot  mean  that  in 
this  world  God  makes  a  final  end  of  recompensing  either 
the  righteous  or  the  Avicked.  Did  he  make  a  full  and  final 
retribution,  it  could  not  be  said  that  "  much  more  "  will 
he  recompense  "  the  Avicked  and  the  sinner."  Perfect 
retribution  in  each  case,  would  preclude  the  possibility 
of  such  a  comparison. — He  will  to  a  certain  extent,  and  as 
a  eeneral  law  of  his  proceedings,  recompense  the  right- 
eous in  the  earth  ;  but  much  more,  to  a  greater  extent,  and 
more  invariably,  will  he  recompense  the  wicked  in  the 
earth.     This  corresponds   exactly  with  the  experience 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  59 

of  mankind,  for  God  does  more  uniformly  punish  sin. 
than  reward  virtue  in  this  life.  The  Lord's  dealings  with 
us,  show,  that  he  loves  obedience  and  hates  transgression ; 
that  it  shall  be  well  with  the  righteous,  and  ill  with  the 
wicked ;  and  that  from  his  imperfect  retribution  begun 
and  carried  on  in  this  world,  a  perfect  consummation 
of  distributive  justice  may  be  expected  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment. 

That  salvation  is  "  the  gift  of  God,"  to  all  of  those  who 
are  saved,  and  results  not  to  them  from  the  merit  of  their 
own  good  works,  is  granted,  so  that  no  man  should  boast, 
but  ascribe  all  the  glory  of  his  being  pardoned,  sanctified 
and  glorified  in  heaven,  to  "  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
died  for  us." 

The  passage  of  Scripture  on  which  you  seem  to  rely 
with  the  greatest  confidence  is  Colossians  i.  19,  20,  21. 
"  It  pleased  the  Father,  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell; 
and  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by  him 
to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself;  by  him,  I  say,  ivhether 
they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven.  And  you  that 
were  sometime  alienated,  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked 
works;  yet  noiv  hath  he  reconciled.^'  I  am  not,  indeed,  dis- 
posed to  deny  that  he  must  be  happy  who  becomes  recon- 
ciled to  God,'  by  a  change  in  his  state  and  mental  opera- 
tions, so  that  he  is  a  pardoned  sinner  and  loves  God.  But 
you  insist  that  all  things  are  to  be  reconciled ;  and  seem 
to  think  they  will  be,  or  now  are  so  reconciled  as  to  be- 
come happv.  '■'  In  my  judgment,"  you  say,  "  this  passage 
distinctly  teaches  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all 
mankind — inasmuch  as  it  teaches  the  reconciliation  of  all 
things  to  God:'  All  things,  are  words,  which  if  taken 
without  restriction  mean  more  than  all  persons.  Every 
object  of  conception,  and  every  act  of  mind,  is  a  thing. 
You  surely  do  not  mean  to  insist,  that  the  stones  of  the 
street,  the  birds  of  the  air,  the  cattle  of  the  hills,  the  air 
we  breathe,  the  winds  and  waves,  are  to  be  reconciled  to 
God,  in  any  such  sense,  as  to  render  them  capable  of  end- 
less happiness.  Inanimate  objects  are  not  capable  of  be- 
ing reconciled  to  God,  in  the  exclusive  sense  of  which  you 


eO  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

write,  meaning  a  reconciliation  in  mental,  moral,  and 
legal  estate,  or  in  disposition  of  mind;  and  yet  they  come 
under  the  general  class  of  "  all  things."  Not  all  things, 
absolutely,  are  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  then,  in  any  such 
sense  as  to  secure  to  them  everlasting  or  even  any  hap- 
piness. If  there  is  any  single  thing,  a  man,  an  apple,  or 
a  pebble,  to  be  excluded  from  the  class  of  all  things  to  be 
reconciled,  so  as  to  be  happy,  your  argument  from  abso- 
lute universality  in  this  passage  is  lost.  Reconciliation 
here  must  mean  something  different  from  a  change  of 
mental  or  moral  state,  preparatory  to  future  bliss,  or  else 
the  all  things  to  be  reconciled  must  be  understood  in  a 
restricted  sense.  You  may  take  which  of  these  alterna- 
tives you  choose.  If  you  say  that  a  thing  may  be  recon- 
died  to  Gof?,  without  being  secure  of  everlasting  happiness, 
then  I  subjoin,  that  the  sinner  may  be  that  thing,  and 
may  in  the  sense  of  the  text  be  reconciled  to  God,  without 
ever  being  happy.  If  you  say  that  all  things  are  to  be 
understood  as  denoting  something  less  than  absolute  imi- 
versality  of  being;  then  I  add,  that  God  will  undoubtedly 
reconcile  unto  himself  all  the  persons  and  all  the  things 
that  are  to  be  reconciled  unto  himself. 

Moreover,  the  holy  angels,  which  have  not  sinned,  are 
comprehended  under  the  expression  all  things;  and  they 
being  referred  to,  as  "  things  in  heaven,"  have  no  need 
of  such  reconciliation  as  consists  in  a  change  of  estate 
from  condemnation  to  pardon ;  or  a  change  of  mind  from 
rebellion  to  submission,  from  enmity  to  love.  Hence  we 
mfer,  that  the  reconciliation  here  spoken  of  does  not  ne- 
cessarily imply  any  such  change  as  is  requisite  to  prepare 
the  wicked  for  heaven,  by  making  them  holy  in  heart 
and  life. 

It  would  be  easy  to  show,  from  the  most  learned  lexi- 
cographers and  commentators,  that  the  word  rendered 
reconcile  primarily  signifies  to  change  any  thing  from  one 
state  to  another;  and  hence,  secondarily,  when  a  man's 
mind  is  changed  from  enmity  to  love,  in  relation  to  any 
one,  he  is  said  to  be  reconciled  to  that  individual.  It  is 
the  primary  sense  of  the  word  that  is  employed  when  it  is 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  61 

said, the  Greek  bein<^  literally  translated,  "For  it  seemed 
good,  thai  ill  him  all  fulness  should  dwell,  and  to  recon- 
cile all  things  to  him,  he  having  made  peace  through  the 
blood  of  his  cross ;  by  him,  whether  the  things  on  the 
earth,  or  the  things  in  the  heavens."  In  consequence 
of  Christ's  having  died  on  the  cross  to  complete  the  work 
of  redemption,  it  pleased  God  that  in  him  as  Mediator  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  should  dwell,  and  that  all 
things  should  be  transferred  to  his  dominion ;  so  that  he 
should  be  head  over  all  things  to  his  church.  Dr.  Mc- 
Knight  considered  it  a  correct  expression  of  the  original, 
to  say  unite,  instead  of  reconcile,  all  things  to  him. 

There  is  yet  another  interpretation  which  would  make 
the  word  reconcile  mean  nothing  more  than  laying  the 
foundation  for  actual  reconciliation.  Thus  it  is  said,  "  if, 
when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God,"  i.  e. 
we  were  atoned  for,  or  the  groundAvork  of  reconciliation 
was  done,  "by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more  being 
reconciled  "  in  our  hearts  and  state,  "  we  shall  be  saved 
by  his  life,"  Rom.  v.  10.  Here  sinners  for  whom  the 
price  of  redemption  is  paid,  are  said  to  be  reconciled  to 
God,  while  they  yet  continue  in  a  state  of  enmity ;  but 
subsequently  they  become  actually  reconciled  by  the  re- 
newing of  their  minds. 

You  refer  to  Coloss.  i.  16—18,  in  which  it  is  said  of  the 
"image  of  the  invisible  God,"  that  "by  him  were  all 
things  created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth — 
all  things  were  created  by  him  and  for  him :  and  he  is 
before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist.  And  he 
is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church— that  in  all  things  he 
might  have  the  pre-eminence."  In  these  five  instances 
you  think  I  will  allow  the  expression  all  things  to  be  un- 
limited ;  and  ask  why  then  I  should  limit  the  declaration 
immediately  after  made  concerning  God's  reconciling  all 
things.  I  answer,  that  the  all  things  created,  are  limited 
to  all  creatures;  for  while  all  creatures  were  made  by  him, 
there  were  some  things  in  existence  which  were  not  made 
by  him  ;  such  as  the  essence  of  the  Deitv,  infinite  space, 
and  the  action  of  free  agents.  He  is  before  all  things 
6 


6S  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

that  ever  began  to  be,  but  not  before  all  things  absolutely, 
for  that  would  make  him  to  be  before  himself. 

That  all  unbelievers  as  Avell  as  believers  shall  be  recon- 
ciled to  God,  so  as  eventually  to  be  holy  and  happy,  you 
argue  from  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  in  which  place  we  read,  "All 
things  are  of  God,  who  hath  reconciled  us  [believers]  to 
himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  minis- 
try of  reconciliation;  to  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ 
reconciling  the  world  to  himself,  not  imputing  their 
trespasses  unto  them."  Because  God  is  in  Christ,  by  his 
word  and  Spirit,  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,  it  does 
not  follow  that  every  individual  of  the  world  of  mankind 
now  is,  or  ever  will  be,  actually  reconciled.  The  process 
of  reconciliation  is  going  on  in  the  world,  but  it  has  not 
been  consummated.  So  far  as  Christ  actually  reconciles 
men  to  himself  in  the  state  of  their  souls,  he  does  not 
impute  their  sins  to  them,  but  pardons  them ;  but  the 
ministry  of  reconciliation  has  not  yet  extended  to  every 
individual  of  the  world  of  mankind,  and  therefore  you 
have  no  reason  to  conclude  that  actual  reconciliation  has 
outstripped  the  progress  of  the  means.  The  ivorld  and 
the  u'hole  w&rld  frequently  mean  any  complete  system 
of  things ;  and  hence  we  read  of  a  ivorld  of  iniquity  in  the 
tongue  ;  of  a  ivorld  lying  in  sin,  from  which  the  apostles 
and  saints  were  exempted ;  and  of  the  world  gone  after 
Christ,  while  multitudes  never  went  after  him.  There 
is  a  world  of  believers  and  a  world  of  unbelievers. 

In  Philippians  ii.  9, 11,  we  are  informed,  that  in  con- 
sideration of  his  work  of  redemption  God  hath  highly 
exalted  Christ,  "  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name:  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth ;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 
Hence  you  infer  the  wiiversality  of  holiness  and  happi- 
ness. You  have  forgotten  that  some  confessed  Christ  and 
bcwed  the  knee  before  him,  acknowledging  him  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father,  who  said,  "  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  God, 
art  thou  come  hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time  ?" 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  63 

The  bended  knee  is  but  an  external  token  of  subjection ; 
and  when  some  shall  say,  "  Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us,"  to 
be  told,  "depart  accursed,"  they  will  confess  Christ  in 
such  a  way  that  God  the  Father  will  be  glorified  in  their 
damnation.  We  grant  that  "  whosoever  offereth  praise 
glorifieth"  the  Lord  :  but  equally  true  it  is  that  the  wrath 
of  man  shall  praise  the  Lord  ;  and  the  remainder  thereof, 
or  that  which  would  not  glorify  him,  he  will  restrain. 

No  man  can  say,  from  the  heart,  with  faith,  hope,  and 
love,  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  a 
parrot  might  say  "Jesus  is  the  Lord,"  without  the  least 
intelligence,  and  a  man  may  say  it  with  as  little  meaning 
as  a  parrot,  ten  thousand  times,  and  then  perish  for  ever. 
As  "  no  man  speaking  by  the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus 
accursed,"  so  no  man  makes  a  truly  evangelical  confes- 
sion of  the  supreme  Deity  of  Jesus,  who  has  not  been 
savingly  taught  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  your  letter  of  March  15th,  you  assure  me  "that 
Universalists  sincerely  believe  all  that  the  Bible  says 
about  everlasting  punishment ;"  and  yet  you  hold  that 
the  Bible  says  nothing  about  it ! 

You  think  Luke  xiii.  1 — 5,  proves  that  unless  men  re- 
pent, they  shall  perish  "  in  like  manner,"  as  those  per- 
ished on  whom  the  tower  in  Siloam  fell,  or  those  persons 
whose  blood  Pilate  mingled  with  their  sacrifices.  Can 
you  believe,  that  if  men  do  not  repent  in  this  life,  they 
shall  all  come  to  their  death  by  some  violent  means ;  by 
the  fall  of  a  house,  or  by  some  bloody  persecutor  ?  If 
this  were  the  case,  we  should  regard  such  a  general  rule 
of  perishing  from  the  earth,  as  a  strong  indication  of  ev- 
erlasting vengeance.  We  regard  the  declaration,  that 
those  who  do  not  repent  shall  all  likewise  perish,  as  teach- 
ing nothing  about  the  mode  of  their  natural  death.  It  sim- 
ply means,  that  those  who  repent  not  shall  so  perish, 
being  taken  away  in  God's  displeasure,  by  whatever  death, 
as  those  persons  on  whom  the  tower  in  Siloam  fell,  or 
those  persons  whom  Pilate  murdered  in  the  midst  of  their 
religious  rites.  Here  the  perishing  or  perdition  threat- 
ened must  refer  to  something  else  than  the  mode  of  dy- 


64  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

ng,  if  all  who  repent  noi  shall  perish,  as  you  agree,  in 
"  like  manner"  as  they  perished.  That  you  are  correct  in 
your  explanation  of  the  word  Uhcioise  in  the  passage  un- 
der consideration,  is  admitted  ;  for  although  the  English 
word  likeioisc  frequently  signifies  also,  yet  the  two  Greek 
words  {iioavTUii)  and  (S/^o/w?)  which  are  translated  likewise 
in  verses  3d  and  5th  of  Luke  xiii,  certainly  denote  the 
perishing  to  be  in  like  manner.  They  who  perished  in  con- 
sequence of  the  falling  of  the  tower  of  Siloam,  and  the 
cruelty  of  Pilate,  were  not  worse  than  other  sinners,  who 
lived  to  old  age  and  died  in  their  beds  :  but  says  our  Sa- 
viour, except  ye  repent  ye  shall  all  perish,  as  they  perish- 
ed ;  for  he  who  dies  without  repentance,  perishes  from 
the  gracious  presence  of  the  Lord. 

You  aim  "  to  show  that  premature  natural  death  was 
the  declared  consequence  of  iniquity,  according  to  the  rep- 
resentation of  Solomon,"  and  that  this  is  the  perdition 
denounced  against  the  wicked,  w^hen  it  is  said  they  shall 
perish.  It  is  granted,  that  frequently  the  wicked  do  not 
live  out  half  their  days,  Avhich  they  might  live  were  they 
moral  in  their  conduct ;  and  that  in  general,  obedience  in 
childhood,  and  virtuous  conduct  in  after  life,  tend  to  pros- 
perity and  length  of  days.  Still  we  read  of  a  sinner's 
being  accursed,  w4ien  a  hundred  years  old,  Isa.  Ixv.  20  ; 
and  our  own  observation  must  have  taught  us,  that  many 
sinners,  instead  of  coming  to  a  premature  death,  die  in 
old  age,  in  their  iniquities,  "  being  wholly  at  ease  and 
quiet." 

The  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  proves  nothing  more  than  this,  that 
in  and  through  Adam,  all  mankind  have  become  subject 
to  natural  "death,  and  that  in  and  through  Christ,  all  men 
shall  be  raised  from  the  dead  at  the  last  day.  Paul  is  ar- 
guing against  those  who  denied  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  and  he  asserts  that  fhe  resurrection  through  Christ 
shall  be  as  extensive,  as  death  by  Adam.  ^5  in  Adam  all 
die,  says  he,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive;  and 
he  is  careful  to  add,  in  the  next  verse,  "  but  every  man  in 
his  own  order."  Now  in  this  order,  Christ  arose  as  the 
first  fruits;  afterwards  shall  arise  they  that  are  Christ's  at 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  65 

Ilis  coming  ;  and  finally  all  the  wicked  shall  arise  t()  im^ 
mortality  and  damnation  at  the  same  time.  Then  all 
things,  and  among  them  death  itself,  shall  be  subdued  to 
Christ,  without  entering  heaven. 

Some  shall  as  certainly  be  made  alive  in,  or  hy  Christ, 
to  an  immortality  of  misery,  as  others  to  an  immortal- 
ity of  blessedness.  In  proof  of  this  doctrine  of  a  resur- 
rection from  the  grave  to  a  future  judgment,  and  of 
some  men  to  all  the  miseries  of  hell,  in  body  and  in 
spirit  for  ever,  I  adduce  the  following  texts :  "  Many 
of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake, 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  ever- 
lasting contempt.  And  they  that  be  wise  shall  shine 
as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament ;  and  they  that  turn 
many  to  righteousness  as  the  stars  for  ever  and  ever," 
Daniel  xii.  2,  3.  Here,  among  those  who  are  to  arise 
from  their  graves,  there  is  to  be  a  distinction  between 
those  who  are  wise  and  all  the  unwise.  The  wise  are  to 
shine,  with  different  degrees  of  glory,  according  to  the 
measure  of  their  holy  obedience,  and  are  to  experience 
everlasting  life  ;  while  all  persons  of  an  opposite  character 
are  to  be  the  subjects  of  shame  and  everlasting  contempt. 

In  the  fiftieth  Psalm,  we  have  a  prophetic  description 
of  the  future  general  judgment.  Out  of  Zion,  the  per^ 
fection  of  beauty,  God  hath  already  shined  in  the  glory  of 
his  gospel,  which  reveals  to  us  the  end  of  the  world. 
Our  God  shall  come,  in  awful  majesty,  as  a  destroying  fire 
and  tempest  to  the  wicked.  But  in  relation  to  others  he 
shall  say  to  his  angels,  "  Gather  my  saints  together  unto 
me  ;  those  that  have  made  covenant  with  me  by  sacrifice. 
And  the  heavens  shall  declare  his  righteousness,  for  God 
is  judge  himself." 

Concerning  this  scene,  "Enoch  also,  the  seventh  from 
Adam,  prophesied, — saying.  Behold,  the  Lord  coming  with 
ten  thousand  of  his  saints,  to  execute  judgment  upon  all, 
and  to  convince  all  that  are  ungodly  among  them,  of  all 
their  ungodly  deeds  which  they  have  ungodly  committed, 
and  of  all  their  hard  speeches  which  ungodly  sinners 
^ve  spoken  against  him,"  Jude  ver.  14,  15.  When  the 
6* 


66  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

ungodly  are  tlms  convinced,  and  judgment  is  executed 
upon  them,  every  mouth  Avill  be  stopped;  every  knee 
will  bow,  every  tongue  will  confess,  and  God  will  be  glo- 
rified in  manifesting  his  justice,  goodness,  and  forbear- 
ance, even  in  relation  to  the  sinner's  doom. 

In  Jude  we  also  read,  concerning  the  Lord,  that  "  the  an- 
gels which  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own 
habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting  chains  under 
darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.  Even  as 
vSodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  cities  about  them  in  like 
manner,  giving  themselves  over  to  fornication,  and  going 
after  strange  flesh,  are  set  forth  for  an  example,  suffering 
the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire.  Likewise,  also,  these  filthy 
dreamers  defile  the  flesh,  despise  dominion,  and  speak 
evi'  of  dignities."  These  Jude,  or  Judas,  the  brother  of 
James,  styles  "  wandering  stars,  to  whom  is  reserved  the 
blackness  of  darkness  for  ever."  Here  the  spirit  of  in- 
spiration gives  us  instances  of  endless  punishment  in  the 
angels  who  sinned;  in  the  inhabitants  of  the  plain  of 
Sodom,  who  suffer,  after  the  shower  of  fire  had  swept 
them  from  the  earth,  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire  ;  and  in 
those  ungodly  men  in  the  days  of  Judas,  who  denied  the 
only  Lord  God,  turned  the  grace  of  God  into  lascivious- 
ness,  and  were  ordained  to  condemnation. 

In  2  Cor.  v.  8 — 10,  Paul  says,  that  he  is  willing  to  be 
absent  from  the  body  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord,  for 
which  presence  "  we  labour,  that,  whether  present  or  ab- 
sent, we  may  be  accepted  of  him  :  for  we  must  all  appear 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ;  that  every  one  may 
receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he 
hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."  Here  our  appear- 
ing before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  is  represented  as 
taking  place  after  our  spirits  are  unclothed  of  the  earthly 
house  of  this  tabernacle,  and  clothed  upon  with  a  house 
not  made  with  hands,  so  that  mortality  is  swallowed  up. 
When  we  live  to  die  no  more,  having  risen  from  the  grave, 
then  shall  we  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ, 
that  we  may  receive  our  portion  for  ever. 

"  God  shall  bring  every  work  into  judgment,  with  every 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  67 

secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil," 
Eccles.  xii.  14.  "  God  shall  judge  the  righteous  and  the 
wicke^d,"  Eccles.  iii.  17. 

"  In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men 
by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  my  gospel,"  saith  Paul,  then 
"  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law,  shall  also  perish 
without  law;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law, 
shall  be  judged  by  the  law,"— "for  there  is  no  respect  of 
persons  with  God,"  Rom.  ii.  11,  12,  16.  In  this  same 
chapter,  Paul  says,  "we  are  sure  that  the  judgment  of 
God  is  according  to  truth,"-  and  then  exhorts  to  a  prepara- 
tion for  it,  as  a  future  "  revelation  of  the  righteous  judg- 
ment of  God  ;  who  will  render  unto  every  man  according 
to  his  deeds."  He  does  not  affirm  that  God  <^oc^  it  now^ 
but  that  he  u-ill  do  it,  in  that  day  of  wrath,  against  which, 
by  their  hardness  and  impenitent  heart,  many  treasure  up 
wrath;  in  that  day,  in  which  he  will  render  glory,  honour, 
immortality,  eternal  life,  to  them  that  patiently  continue 
in  well  doing  ;  in  that  day,  in  which  he  will  render  to  the 
contentious  who  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but  obey  unright- 
eousness, "  tribulation  and  anguish  upon  every  soul  of 
man  that  doelh  evil." 

Paul  told  the  Athenians,  that  God  "  hath  appointed  a 
day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness, 
by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained,"  Acts  xvii.  31.  If 
the  day  of  judgment  was  the  day  of  giving  the  law,  or 
any  time  prior  to  the  apostle's  teaching  the  Athenians, 
there  was  no  propriety  in  saying,  that  God  hath  appointed 
a  day  in  Avhich  he  unll  judge  the  world.  In  that  case  he 
might  have  said,  ''  he  lias  judged  the  world,  without  ap- 
pointing any  day  for  the  judgment." 

As  an  inducement  to  men^to  deny  themselves,  take  up 
the  cross  and  follow  him,  Jesus  said,  in  reference  to  gain- 
ing the  Vv'orld  and  losing  one's  own  soul,  "  for  the  Son  of 
man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his  an- 
gels ;  and  then  shall  he  reward  every  man  according  to 
his  work,"  Matt.  xvi.  27.  Then,  when  he  shall  thus  come, 
and  not  before,  will  he  perfectly  reward  every  man.  In 
proof  of  his  coming  to  judge  the  world  in  the  last  day. 


68  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSIOK. 

"agreeably  to  this  declaration,  Jesus  then  informed  his  di?- 
t^iples,  that  they  should  not  all  die,  before  he  would  come 
in  his  spiritual  kino^doui  on  earth.  "There  be  some  stand- 
ing here  which  shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom."  John  lived  to  see 
the  full  establishment  of  Christianity  in  the  world ;  and 
the  Saviour's  coming  to  judge  Jerusalem  and  call  the 
■Gentiles;  but  this  was  a  widely  different  thing  from  his 
coming  to  judge  the  world  in  the  last  day. 

I  shall  refer  you,  at  present,  to  one  other  passage,  of 
fearful  import,  and  in  my  opinion  conclusive  on  the  sub- 
ject of  our  controversy. 

"  It  is  a  righteous  thing  with  God  to  recompense  tribu- 
lation to  them  that  trouble  you  ;  and  to  you  who  are 
troubled,  rest  with  us,  Avhen  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  re- 
vealed from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaming 
fire  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and 
that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  who 
shall  be  punished  Avith  everlasting  destruction  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power ; 
when  he  shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to 
be  admired  in  all  them  that  believe  (because  our  testimony 
among  you  was  believed)  in  that  day,"  2  Thes.  i.  6 — 10. 
"  In  that  day,"  the  day  of  final  judgment,  "  whfn  he  shall 
come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired  in  all 
them  that  believe,"  then  "  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  he  reveal- 
ed from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaminsf  fire 
taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  that 
obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  who  shall 
be  pmiished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Lord,  and  the  glory  of  his  power."  In  this 
way  Christ  will  recompense  tribulation  to  those  who  per- 
secute his  people,  and  rest  to  those  who  suffer  trouble  for 
his  sake.  Thus  to  give  sinners  and  saints,  persecutors 
and  the  persecuted,  their  respective  portions,  is  a  "right- 
eous thing  with  God." 

I  accuse  you,  sir,  of  no  prevarication  nor  of  intentional 
misrepresentation;  and  thank  you  for  the  repeated  in- 
stances in  which  you  have  given  me  advice  concerning 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  Wf 

the  manner  in  which  I  ought  to  manage  my  part  in  this 
discussion ;  but  really  this  last  passage  of  the  word  of 
God  which  I  have  cited,  must  for  ever  prevent  me  from 
becoming  a  Universalist. 

I  remain  yours  respectfully, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY, 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  April  7th,  1834. 

Dear  Sir — I  am  much  pleased  with  the  spirit  and  gene- 
ral tenor  of  your  last  letter.  Controversialists  have  fre- 
quently allowed  a  difTerence  of  opinion  to  engender  feel- 
ings of  animosity,  which  have  been  evinced  in  their  de- 
portment one  toward  the  other  ;  and  thus,  instead  of  sub- 
serving the  interests  of  truth,  they  have  embittered  their 
own  reflections,  caused  heartfelt  sorrow  in  their  friends, 
and  furnished  grounds  for  reproach  to  the  despisers  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ.  I  sincerely  hope  that  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  before  us,  we  shall  be  enabled  to 
convince  the  controversial  world,  that  opponent  opinions 
do  not  necessarily  involve  the  creation  of  opponent  feel- 
ings. 

You  commence  your  letter  with  some  remarks  on- 
Prov.  xi.  31 — which  passage  I  quoted  without  comment,. 
in  my  Bible  creed.  Before  I  proceed  to  examine  the  bear- 
ing of  those  remarks,  allow  me  to  observe  that  the  ques- 
tion is  simplv,  "  Is  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment 
taught  in  the  Bible?  or  does  the  Bible  teach  the  final  ho- 
liness and  happiness  of  all  mankind  ?"  You  are  not  re- 
quired to  prove,  by  direct  argument,  that  the  wicked  are 
not  fully  recompensed  in  this  world,  nor  am  I  required  to 
prove  that  they  are.  You  are  called  upon  to  show  that 
endless  punishment  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible — in  which 
event  it  will  of  course  be  established,  that  the  wicked  are 
not  adequately  recompensed  in  the  present  life.  And  I 
have  engaged  to  prove  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of 


70  THEOLOGICJiL  DISCUSSION. 

all  mankind — in  which  event  it  will  follow,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  punishment  is  false. 

When  it  is  said,  "  the  righteous  shall  be  recompensed 
in  the  earth,"  are  we  to  understand  that  they  shall  be  re- 
compensed only  in  part,  in  this  life  ?  A  recompense  is  a 
compensation,  a  countervail,  an  equivalent.  When  you 
engage  men  to  labour  for  you,  with  the  assurance  that 
they  shall  be  recompensed  in  Philadelphia,  you  do  not 
sup}X)se  it  necessary  to  use  the  word  "  fully  ;"  nor  da 
they  imagine  that  a  part  of  their  recompense  will  be  paid 
in  Boston.  AVhether  it  be  paid  to-day,  or  to-morrow,  or 
next  week,  it  must  be  paid  in  Philadelphia — or  your  assu- 
rance is  void.  Now  the  simple  declaration,  that  "  the 
righteous  shall  be  recompeiised  in  the  earth,'^  is  equally  em- 
phatic with  your  supposed  assurance  above  noticed.  "  In 
the  earth,"  then,  the  righteous  shall  be  recompensed — 
that  is,  they  shall,  in  the  earth,  receive  a  reward  equiva- 
lent to  their  labours  of  love. 

You  lay  considerable  stress  on  the  phrase  "  wwcA  more" 
and  so  do  I — but  our  inferences  are  widely  different.  It 
appears  to  me  that  the  expression  is  used  by  way  of  em- 
phasis.    Let  us  compare  a  few  passages. 

Luke  xii.  28 :  "  If  then  God  so  clothe  the  grass,  which 
is  to  day  in  the  field,  and  to  morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven, 
how  MUCH  MORE  will  he  clothe  you,  0  ye  of  little  faith?" 
Here  a.  fact  is  stated,  viz.,  that  God  does  clothe  the  grass 
of  the  field— and  the  words  "  much  more"  were  introduc- 
ed to  render  the  conclusion  more  emphatic,  viz.,  that  God 
would  certainly  clothe  the  disciples.  So  in  Matt.  vii.  11.: 
"  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts 
unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask 
him  ?"  Here  the  phrase  "  much  more"  is  plainly  used 
by  way  of  emphasis.  Even  parents  who  are  evil  give 
good  gifts  to  their  children.  From  this  fact  Jesus  argued 
that  God  would  certainly  give  good  things  to  them  who 
ask  nim.     Neither  fact  is  contravened  by  the  other. 

So  in  the  text.  It  is  a  fact  that  "  the  righteous  shall 
be  recompensed  in  the  earth,"  and  the  certainty  that  such 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCDSEION.  71 

shall  also  be  the  case  with  "  the  wicked  and  the  sinner,'- 
is  rendered  emphatic  by  the  use  of  the  words  "much 
more."  Throughout  the  chapter  of  which  this  passage 
is  a  portion,  the  blessedness  of  the  righteous  and  the 
wretchedness  of  the  wicked  in  the  present  life,  are  placed 
in  contrast— and  the  whole  is  concluded  with  the  language 
under  consideration. 

The  fact,  then,  that  the  wicked  are  recompensed  here, 
furnishes  [not  only]  one  of  the  strongest  probabilities 
[but  one  of  the  strongest  proofs]  that  they  will"  not  be 
recompensed  hereafter''  for  the  sins  of  this  life. 

I  have  ever  contended  that  "  the  way  of  transgressors 
is  hard,"  and  that  so  long  as  man  is  sinful,  just  so  long 
he  will  be  miserable.  But  you  assume  that  some  of  man- 
kind will  be  sinful  in  the  future  state— which  I  desire  you 
to  attempt  to  prove  by  the  Bible.     Rom.  vi.  7. 

You  say,  "  an  unchanging  God,  whose  principles  of 
moral  government  are  fixed,  and  who  recompenses  men 
according  to  their  conduct  now,  will  certainly  treat  men 
according  to  their  respective  characters  in  all  future  times." 
But  you  have  informed  us  that  neither  the  righteous  nor 
the  wicked  are  adequately  recompensed  in  this  world— 
and  so,  according  to  your  analogical  reasoning,  you  should 
allow  that  they  never  icill  be  thus  recompensed  !— for  "  the 
principles  of  the  [Divine]  moral  government  are  fixed." 
If  an  "  imperfect  retribution"  noiv,  is  consequential  of 
fixed  principles,  why  should  you  analogically  argue  a  sub- 
sequent per/ec^  retribution  ? 

It  is  true,  that  many  of  those  denominated  the  right- 
eous are  called  to  endure  much  suffering ;  and  many  of 
those  who  are  popularly  styled  the  wicked  seem  to  pros- 
per in  their  outward  concerns — but  the  former  would  not 
consent  to  exchange  situations  with  the  latter,  even  sup- 
posing this  life  to  close  the  existence  of  both.  I  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  that 

"  Oft  shining  cares  in  rich  brocades  are  drest, 
And  diamonds  sparkle  on  the  anxious  breast ;" 

that  "  the  wicked  are  like  the  troubled  sea  that  cannot 


72  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSIOX. 

rest,  whose  waters  cast  up  mire  and  dirt — there  is  no  peace 
to  the  wicked,  saith  my  God  ;"  and  though  a  man  accu- 
mulate wealtli,  and  he  crowned  with  all  the  honours  and 
plaudits  of  the  world,  if  he  be  not  a  disciple  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  peace  is  a  stranger  to  his  mind,  and  his  soul  is  the 
scene  of  conflicting  passions  which  cannot  hut  render 
him  an  object  of  pity  rather  than  of  condemnation 

On  the  other  hand,  I  have  as  little  reason  to  doubt  that 

"  The  soul's  calm  sunshine,  and  the  heartfelt  joy 
Is  virtue's  prize;" 

that  the  sufferings  not  consequent  of  guilt  are  incidental 
to  our  mortal  existence ;  that  happiness  is  primarily  de- 
pendent on  the  state  of  the  mind  ;  and  that  he  who  learns 
of  Jesus,  ivill  find  rest  to  his  soul.  "  Li  keeping  the  com- 
mandments there  is  great  reward."  "  Great  peace  have 
they  who  love  thy  law,  and  nothinp:  shall  offend  them." 
They  enjoy  a  peace  which  all  the  blandishments  of  the 
world  must  ever  fail  to  yield  ;  and  which  the  frowns  and 
reverses  of  fortune  can  never  take  away.  Christian  !  is 
not  this  the  record  of  thy  experience  ? 

Your  remarks  on  Col.  i.  19,  20,  do  not,  in  my  judgment, 
weaken  the  force  of  the  text  in  proof  of  the  final  holiness 
and  happiness  of  all  mankmd.  You  allow  that  "  he  must 
he  happy  who  is  reconciled  to  God,  by  a  change  in  his 
state  and  mental  operations  so  that  he  is  a  pardoned  sin- 
ner and  loves  God."  Now  that  the  reconciliation  signi- 
fied in  the  declaration,  "  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  to 
himself,"  is  of  this  character,  appears  evident  from  the 
consideration,  that  it  is  immediately  added,  "  And  you 
HATH  he  reconciled.''''  The  reconciliation  in  the  one  case 
must  be  of  the  same  general  character,  as  that  of  the 
other.  The  believers  who  had  hecn  reconciled,  were  a 
kind  of  first  fruits  of  the  all  things,  whom  it  pleased  the 
Father  to  reconcile  to  himself. 

Reconciliation  always  supposes  previous  irreconciliation. 
If  "the  stones  of  the  street,  the  birds  of  the  air,  the  cat- 
tle of  the  hills,  the  air  we  breiithe,  or  the  winds  and 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  73 

waves,"  were  ever  unreconciled,  they  are  embraced  In  the 
all  things  to  be  reconciled — but  not  otherwise.  None 
but  rational  beings  can  be  reconciled  in  the  sense  of  the 
text.  Those  who  had  been  reconciled  were  of  the  same 
race  of  beings  intended  by  the  phrase  all  things.  "  And 
you  that  were  sometime  alienated  and  enemies  in  your 
mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled." 
If  "an  apple,  a  pebble,  the  essence  of  Deity,  infinite 
space,  and  the  actions  of  free  agents,"  were  never  alienated 
and  never  enemies  by  wicked  works,  then  they  are  not 
among  the  all  things  to  be  reconciled. 

When  Jesus  said,  •'  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature, ^^ 
do  you  suppose  he  intended  the  message  to  be  delivered 
to  "  the  stones  of  the  street,  or  to  the  cattle  of  the  hills  ?" 
John  writes  as  follows  :  "  And  every  creature  which  is  in 
heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such 
as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  say- 
ing. Blessing,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto 
him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  for 
ever  and  ever,"  Rev.  v.  13.  Do  you  suppose  this  eulo- 
gium  was  pronounced  by  the  birds  of  the  air,  the  winds 
and  waves,  or  the  fishes  of  the  sea  ?  Do  you  suppose  it 
was  pronounced  by  any  other  than  rational  beings  ?  Yet 
the  phrase  "  every  creature'^  is  used.  Professor  Stuart,  of 
Andover,  in  his  letters  to  Channing,  p.  100,  says,  "  Things 
in  heaven,  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  is  a  common 
periphrasis  of  the  Hebrew  and  New  Testament  writers 
for  the  Universe,  to  nav  or  ra  Travra.  I  may  remark  that 
ra  -avra  is  uscd  in  the  tcxt,  and  is  translated  all  things. 
Dr.  Geo.  Campbell,  whose  orthodoxy  you  will  not  ques- 
tion, says,  in  speaking  of  the  periphrasis  mentioned  by 
Stuart,  that  it  includes  "  the  whole  rational  creation.'''  Diss, 
vi.  part.  ii.  sec.  6.  You  thus  perceive  that  the  "all 
things"  to  be  reconciled  include  those  only  who  can  be 
•unreconciled — viz.  the  whole  rational  creation. 

You  give  us  a  primary  and  a  secondary  sense  of  the 
word  reconcile,  and  suppose  that  the  primary  sense  is  em- 
ployed in  the  text.     Your  secondary  sense  is  thus  stated: 
"  When  a  man's  mind  is  changed  from  enmity  to  love,  in 
7 


74  Theological  discussion. 

relation  to  any  one,  he  is  said  to  be  reconciled  to  that 
individual."  This  surely  is  the  sense  in  which  the  word 
is  used  in  the  passage  under  consideration — for  the 
apostle  says,  "  And  you  that  were  sometime  alienated  and 
enemies  in  your  mind  by  Avicked  Avorks,  yet  noio  hath  he 
reconciled.-'  Their  mind's  Avere  changed  from  enmity  to 
love.  And  this  is  the  change  denoted  in  the  declaration, 
"  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himself" — for  I  have 
shoAAm  that  the  reconciliation  in  one  case  must  be  of  the 
same  general  character  as  that  of  the  other.  Dr.  Camp 
bell,  in  his  note  on  Matt.  v.  9,  quotes  Col.  i.  20,  and  says 
that  the  AA^ord  here  used  s'gnifies  ''actively  to  reconcile, 
to  make  peace."  And  he  adds,  that  "  etymology  and 
classical  use  also  concur  in  affixing  thereto  the  sense  of 
reconciler,  peace maher.''^ 

The  other  interpretation  Avhich  you  mention  cannot,  I 
think,  have  any  material  bearing  on  the  sense  of  the  text. 
You  say,  "There  is  yet  another  interpretation  AAdiich 
AA'ould  make  the  AA'ord  reconcile  mean  nothing  more  than 
laying  the  foundation  for  actual  reconciliation."  The 
foundation  for  the  reconciliation  of  all  things  is  stated  in 
the  text — "  And  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his 
cross."  Tlien  folloAvs  the  prospective  result — "By  him  to 
reconcile  all  things  to  himself" 

The  tenor  of  Rom.  v.  1 — 11,  clearly  shoAVs  that  in  the 
death  of  Christ,  the  great  love  of  God  was  manifested  to 
a  sinful  Avorld.  So  soon  as  any  one  Avas  brought  to  realize 
this  great  love,  and  believe  Avith  all  his  heart,  so  soon  Avas 
he  reconciled  to  God.  No  one  in  a  state  of  enmity  can 
thus  be  reconciled,  unless  it  be  in  a  prospective  sense. 
The  Christians  in  Paul's  time  could  safely  and  truly  say, 
"  We  also  joy  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  Avhom  aa^e  have  noiv  received  the  reconciliation,"  or 
atonement.  "Being  reconciled,"  they  knew  they  should 
be  saved  from  the  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish  that  * 
must  come  on  every  unreconciled  soul.  The  death  of 
Christ  Avas  unquestionably  the  foundation  of  reconcilia- 
tion— for  in  his  death  the  unbounded  love  of  God  was 
revealed.    And  it  is  in  the  Saviour's  life  that  the  believer 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 


75 


lives.  Hence  says  Paul,  "Always  bearinjr  about  in  the 
body  ibe  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  the  life  also  of 
Jesus  might  be  made  manifest  in  our  body,"  2  Cor.  iv.  10. 

2  Cor.  V.  18,  19,  considered  in  connexion  with  Col.  i.  20, 
certainly  argues  the  final  reconciliation  of  the  whole  race 
of  man.  Be  sure  "  we  see  not  yet  all  things  put  under 
him ;  but  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory 
and  honour ;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste 
death  for  ci-eni  w/z/i,"  Heb.  ii.  8,  9.  It  is  true  that  the 
process  of  reconciliation  has  not  yet  been  consummated — 
but  ere  the  kingdom  shall  be  delivered  up  to  God  the 
Father,  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  Christ — the  Son 
also  shall  be  subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all,  1  Cor.  xv. 

In  order  to  set  aside  my  reasoning  on  Phil.  ii.  9,  11,  you 
refer  to  the  case  of  the  two  men  who  said,  "  What  have 
we  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  son  of  God  ?  art  thou 
come  hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time  ?"  Matt.  viii.  29. 
vVnd  you  also  inform  me,  that  "a  parrot  might  say,  'Jesus 
is  the  Lord,'  without  the  least  intelligence,"  &;c.  But  do 
vou  seriously  suppose,  that  it  would  be  "  to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father,"  for  a  crazy  man,  a  man  possessed  of 
demons,  to  say,  "Jesus,  thou  son  of  God?"  Or  do  you 
suppose  that  a  parrot  which  should  say,  without  intelli- 
gence, "  Jesus  is  Lord,"  would  in  the  least  degree  glorify 
God  ?  The  language  of  the  text  is  explicit:  '*  That  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  and  that 
every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father.''''  Surely  a  confession  of  this 
description  could  not  be  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father, 
unless  it  were  grounded  in  the  conviction  of  the  under- 
standing, and  offered  in  sincerity  of  heart.  In  this  man- 
ner, and  with  such  feelings,  "  no  man  can  say  that  Jesus 
is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Professor  Stuart,  after  commenting  on  the  periphrasis 
before  alluded  to,  says,  "What  can  be  meant  by  things  in 
heaven,  that  is,  beings  in  heaven,  bowing  tlie  knee  to 


76  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

Jesus,  if  spiritual  worship  be  not  meant?"  And  after 
noticing  the  same  periphrasis  in  Rev.  v.  13,  he  says,  "  If 
this  be  not  spiritual  worship,  and  if  Christ  be  not  the 
object  of  it  here,  I  am  unable  to  produce  a  case  where 
worship  can  be  called  spiritual  and  divine." 

How  any  can  "  confess  Christ  in  such  a  way  that  God 
will  be  glorified  in  their  damnation,"  is  beyond  my  con- 
ception; and  you  have  certainly  furnished  no  proof  of  the 
supposition  that  such  will  be  the  case.  Besides  the  re- 
marks already  offered,  allow  me  to  repeat,  that  with  what- 
ever feelings  one  knee  shall  bow  and  one  tongue  confess, 
every  knee  shall  bow  and  every  tongue  shall  confess — for 
the  apostle  makes  no  distinction  as  to  the  manner  or  result. 

The  "  wrath  of  man"  can  praise  the  Lord  in  no  other 
way,  than  in  being  so  overruled  by  the  benevolent  pur- 
pose of  God  as  to  furnish  ground  for  thanksgiving  and 
gratitude. 

The  paragraph  of  four  lines,  in  which  you  endeavour 
to  make  it  appear  that  I  have  contradicted  myself  in  re- 
lation to  the  phrase  "  everlasting  punishment,"  was  in- 
serted, in  my  judgment,  without  due  reflection.  Surely 
you  do  not  suppose  that  I  am  unacquainted  with  the  letter 
of  the  Bible.  Give  me  leave  to  assure  you  that  we  hiow 
what  the  Bible  says  about  everlasting  punishment ;  and 
to  re-assure  you  "  that  Universalists  sincerely  ^e?iez;e"  what 
it  says.  We  also  sincerely  believe  what  it  says  about  the 
everlasting  priesthood  of  Aaron,  the  everlasting  covenant 
of  the  law,  the  everlasting  possession  of  Canaan,  and 
about  other  everlasting  things  which  have  no  reference  to 
a  future  existence.  In  the  light  of  these  remarks  you 
will  perceive  what  it  is  your  duty  to  perform,  in  relation 
to  the  phrase  "everlasting  punishment,"  in  Matt.  xxv.  46. 

Your  argument  predicated  of  Luke  xiii.  1 — 5,  rests  on 
two  assertions — the  one  direct,  and  the  other  implied: 
1st.  That  "he  who  dies  without  repentance,  perishes 
from  the  gracious  presence  of  the  Lord,"  by  which  you 
mean  that  such  a  one  will  be  doomed  to  endless  punish- 
ment; and  2d.  That  the  Saviour's  language,  "  Except  ye 
jfepent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish,"  is  of  universal  appli 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  77 

cation.  The  connexion  of  the  passage  shows  that  it  was 
confined  to  the  Jewish  people.  So  Pearce— "  Except  ye, 
the  nation  of  the  Jews,  repent,  your  state  shall  he  des- 
troyed." So  RosEN.-MULLLK — "  This  was  fulfilled  at  the 
last  passover,  a  most  fatal  day  to  the  Jews."  So  Cal- 
jXET — "Jesus  Christ  here  predicts  those  calamities  which 
overwhelmed  thcni,  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  hy 
the  Romans  ;  for  then  very  many  impenitent  and  unhe- 
lieving  Jews  were  buried  together  under  the  ruins  of  their 
most  miserable  nation."     So  also  Whitby,  kc. 

I  think  I  succeeded  in  showing,  in  my  last  letter,  "  that 
premature  natural  death  was  the  declared  consequence  of 
iniquity,  (as  in  Prov.  xxix.  1,)  according  to  the  representa- 
tion of  Solomon:'  And  I  aimed  to  show,  that  language 
quoted  from  Solomon's  writings,  must  be  viewed  in  the 
light  of  this  representation.  As  to  the  sinner  being  ac- 
cursed when  a  hundred  years  old,  you  can  draw  no  argu- 
ment therefrom  in  proof  of  endless  punishment — for  it  is 
written,  "he  that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God,"  Deut. 
xxi.  23,  which  language  Paul  quotes  in  reference  to  the 
crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  Gal.  iii.  13.  The  same  apostle 
says,  "I  could  wish  that  myself  were  accursed  from 
Christ  for  my  brethren,"  Rom.  ix.  3. 

In  commenting  on  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  you  seem  to  have  over- 
looked the  declaration,  that  "  even  so  IN  CHRIST  shall 
all  be  made  alive."  And  Paul,  as  quoted  in  a  former 
letter,  declares,  "  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new 
creature;  old  things  have  passed  away,  behold  all  things 
have  become  new,"  2  Cor.  v.  17.  In  the  light  of  this 
testimony,  how  can  you  suppose  that  some  shall  "be 
made  alive  in  Christ  to  an  immortality  of  misery?" 

To  justify  yourself,  you  quote  Daniel  xii.  2,  3.  The 
connexion  of  this  passiige  is  as  follows:  ''■And  at  that 
time  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the  great  prince  which  stand- 
eth  for  the  children  of  thy  people ;  and  there  shall  be  a 
time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  icas  since  there  \cas  a  nation 
even  to  that  same  time  :  and  at  that  time  thy  people  shall 
be  delivered,  every  one  that  shall  be  found  written  in  the 
book.     And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the 


76  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to 

shame  and  everlasting  contempt When  he 

shall  have  accomplished  to  scatter  the  power  of  the  holy- 
people,  all  these  things  shall  be  finished." 

In  Matt.  xxiv.  15,  21,  om-  vSaviour  quotes  the  prophet 
Daniel,  and  refers  the  language  above  itaUcized  to  the 
period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  "  When  ye  there- 
fore shall  see  the  abomination  of  desolation  spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet  ....  then  let  them  which  be  in  Judea 
flee  into  the  mountains  ...  for  then  shall  be  great  fribw 
lation,  such  as  was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the  world  to 
this  time,  no,  nor  ever  shall  be."  As  our  Saviour  thus 
fixed  the  reference  of  Daniel's  language,  it  becomes  us  to 
avoid  contradicting  his  testimony. 

Compare  Dan.  xii.  2,  3,  with  Eph.  v.  14.  "Aim^ethou 
that  shepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  give 
thee  light."  Also  with  Phil.  ii.  15,  ....  "  In  the  midst 
of  a  crooked  and  perverse  nation,  among  whom  ye  shine 
tis  lights  in  theu'07'ld." 

You  say,  and  properly,  that  "  Christ  arose  as  the  first 
fruits  ;  afterwards  shall  arise  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his 
coming ;"  but  you  add,  "  and  finally  all  the  wicked  shall 
arise  to  immortality  and  damnation  at  the  same  time." 
Of  this,  however,  the  apostle  says  not  a  word.  His  lan- 
guage is,  as  quoted  in  my  last,  "  then  cometh  the  end, 
when  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God, 
even  the  Father  ....  and  when  all  things  shall  be  sub- 
dued unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject 
unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may 

BE  ALL  IN  ALL." 

You  affirm  that  '■'death  itself  slmW  be  subdued  to  Christ, 
without  entering  heaven."  Paul's  declaration  is,  not  that 
death  shall  be  subdued  to  Christ,  but  that  death  shall  be 
destroyed,  and  swallowed  up  in  victory. 

"In  the  fiftieth  Psalm,"  you  say,  "avc  have  a  propnetic 
description  of  the  future  general  judgment."  It  would 
have  been  hccomirg  in  you  to  have  furnished  the  proof  of 
such  reference.  The  same  remark  is  applicable  to  your 
quotation  of  Jude  14,  15.    Similar  language,  in  many 


THEOLOr.ICAI.   DISCUSSION.  79 


respects,  and  equally  terrific  is  found  in  Isa.  ^'^'-J'^r 
13  ;;    1    11      See,  also,  Psalm  xcvi.   IJ.     inere  is 
no'hin<^  i  I  an;  or  all  of  these  passages  which  is  not  per- 
fec  il  vr'eforable  to  the  tilings  of  tune.     Conip.  Ps.  1.  5, 
and  Matt.  \xiv.  31,  and  connexion.         ,     ,       .        ,  „„ ,, 
The  fate  of  the  angels  [or  messengers]  who  smned,  and 
that  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha,  are  not  to  yonr  purpose 
Jude  adduces  these  instances  of  the    udgment  of  (.od  as 
;t   m  thp   '■  filthv  dreamers,"   who  disgraced  the 
Chrifthn  Chirch.    &J.N  aptly  remarks,  that  the  apostle 
men   rs  tiie  destruction  of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  "as  a 
Z„a,  something  that  was  a  us,be  '^^"'"P''^,  « .f  ^^  J„X 
word  deriving  from  &:«v»p.,    to  show  <>' f '^  "l"'' P™,P''' J 
^"nifies  to  <'ive  a  sample  of  something  to  he  sold.       bo 
alio  Benson  Hammond,  Whitby.    Tlie  plirase    even  as 
dearfy  shows  that  the  case  of  the  angels  [or  mes-ng^rs] 

:!\rr;^vrnd\t^^?D^tuiVe'Tn^^L^ 

habitrts  of  Sidom  suffered  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fie 
'^rthe  shower  of  fire  had  swept  them  frona  'he  ear 

nor  mus   vou  assume  that  the  angels  mentioned  in  the 
^^ecedSg  verse  were  superhuman  beings,  nor  that  end- 

'^!f^;oT!XeaT2  'S  X  without  the  words  sup- 

„lip/hV  the  translators,  (which  are  always  printed  m 

the  and  for  which  there  is  no  Divine  authority,)  you 

Sp^rceive  that  your  argument  therefrom  in  proof  of  a 

future  "eneral  judgment  is  not  so  strong  as  you  may  have 

funpo-^ed.     rail  speaks  of  being  absent  from  'hcMi,,^'^^ 

Sesent  AVith  the  Lord;  but  he  also  speaks  of  being  at 

llm't  Ihl  Sorfy-and  it  was  with  reference  to  the  latter 

mnf  inn  tliat  he  said,  "  For  we  must  all  appear  before 

e  j  dgn    nt  se^t  of  Christ,  that  every  one  may  receive 

t  e  iiin'-s  [not  out  of  but]  in  body,  according  to  that  he 

hath  done,  whether  good  or  bad."    He  says,  in  Gal.  vi. 


80  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

7,  "  For  whatsoever  a  man  goweth,  that  shall  he  also 
reap,"  He  who  sows  a  field  of  grain  in  Pennsylvania, 
does  not  expect  to  reap  the  crop  in  France.  He  will  reap 
where  he  sowed. 

In  Luke  xxi,  our  Saviour,  in  discoursing  of  events  con- 
nected with  his  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem,  speaks  of 
standing  before  the  Son  of  man.  All  this  was  to  be  in 
the  earth.  Why  then  should  it  be  supposed  that  the 
judgment  seat  of  Christ  is  in  the  immortal  world  ?  Jesus 
told  his  disciples  that  he  should  come  to  judge  the  world — 
not  that  the  people  should  go  into  the  future  state  to  be 
judged. 

It  is  true,  as  you  quote,  that  "  God  shall  bring  every 
work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing,"  Eccl.  xii. 
14 ;  it  is  true  that  "  God  shall  judge  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked,"  Eccl.  iii.  17  ;  and  it  is  equally  true  that  "  He 
is  a  God  who  judgeth  in  the  earth,"  Psalm  Iviii.  11. 

In  your  comments  on  Rom.  ii.  you  (unintentionally,  I 
presume,)  misquote  verse  7,  You  make  it  declare  that 
"God  will  render  glory,  honour,  immortality,  eternal  life, 
to  them  that  patiently  continue  in  well-doing."  The 
text  reads  thus  :  "  To  them  who  by  patient  continuance 
in  well-doing  seek  for  glory,  honour,  immortality,  eternal 
life."  I  have  shown  in  previous  letters  that  the  believing 
ARE  in  possession  of  eternal  life,  and  that  "  glory,  hon 
our,  and  peace,"  are  the  present  consequences  of  righ 
doing. 

You  rest  much  of  your  argument  on  the  alteration  above 
corrected,  and  also  on  the  declaration,  "  m  the  day  when  God 
shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ  according  to 
my  gospel."  This  declaration  is  nothing  to  your  purpose, 
unless  you  prove  that  the  day  referred  to  appertains  to 
a  future  existence.  The  expression,  "the  day  of  wrath," 
furnishes  no  such  proof.  In  Zeph.  i.  we  read,  "  The  great 
day  of  the  Lord  is  near  ....  that  day  is  a  day  ofu-rath, 
a  day  of  trouble  and  distress,  a  day  of  the  trumpet  and 
alarm  against  the  fenced  cities,"  &:c.  So  we  read  in  Rom. 
■ii. — "  indignation  and  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish, 
upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil."    The  former 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  81 

passage  might  be  applied  to  a  future  state  with  as  much 
propriety  as  you  have  thus  applied  the  latter. 

Acts  xvii.  31,  in  iny  judgment,  affords  no  proof  of  the 
position  you  quoted  it  to  establish.  Jehovah  says,  "I  am 
the  Lord  which  exercise  loving-kindness,  judgment,  and 
righteousness  in  the  earth."  Jer.  ix.  24.  God  committed 
ail  judgment  to  the  Son,  John  v.  22.  It  is  recorded,  Isa. 
xxxii.  i,  "  a  king  shall  reign  in  righteousness,  and  princes 
shall  rule  in  judgment."  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples,  Luke 
xxii.  29,  "And  1  appoint  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father 
hath  appointed  unto  me,  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
table  in  my  kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  As  God  Avho  judgeth  in  the 
earth,  committed  all  judgment  to  the  Son,  and  appointed 
him  a  kingdom,  it  Avas  requisite  that  a  day  (or  lime  to 
reisn)  should  also  be  appointed,  (the  gospel  day  or  dis- 
pensation, Isa.  xlix.  8  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  2,)  in  which  God  sliould 
judire  (or  rule)  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man 
whom  he  had  ordained.  See  Psalm  xcvi.  10—13.  "  Say 
among  the  heathen  that  the  Lord  reigneth,"  c\:c.  This 
surely  does  not  argue  that  (rod  hi/naclfh^d  not  previously 
judged  the  world  in  righteousness. 

In  quoting  Matt.  xvi.  27,  28,  you  suppose  that  verse  27 
relates  to  a  vet  future  coming  of  Christ  to  judge  the  world, 
while  you  acknowledge  that  verse  28  refers  to  his  coming 
in  his  spiritual  kingdom,  to  judge  Jerusalem  and  call  the 
Gentiles.  But  the  proof  of  such  a  transition  of  reference 
in  the  cited  verses  remains  to  be  produced.  Our  Lord 
frequently  spake  of  his  coming,  and  by  comparing  the 
language  of  the  text  with  other  passages,  we  shall  arrive 
at  some  definite  conclusion  on  the  subject. 

Luke  xxi  is  chiefly  devoted  to  the  consideration  of 
events  connected  with  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man — 
and  all  those  events  have  a  direct  relation  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  "When  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  com- 
passed with  armies,  then  know  that  the  desolation  thereof 

is  nigh And  there  shall  be  signs  in  the  sun,  and 

the  powers  of  heaven  shall  be  shaken.     And  then  shall 
they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  m  a  cloud  with  power 


83  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

and  great  glory."  In  the  verses  following,  this  coming  is 
confined  to  the  then  existing  generation.     See  verse  32. 

In  Matt,  xxiv  similar  events  are  predicted,  connected 
with  the  same  coming  "  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with 
power  and  great  glory,"  and  the  whole  is  expressly  con- 
fined to  the  generation  then  existing.     See  verse  34. 

In  Matt.  xvi.  27,  28,  language  of  the  same  import  is 
used — "  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of 
his  Father  with  his  angels,  and  then  he  shall  reward  every 
man  according  to  his  works.  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
There  be  some  standing  here  which  shall  not  taste  of 
death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  king- 
dom." Before  the  close  of  the  then  existing  generation, 
Jesus  was  to  come  in  the  kingdom  which  God  had  ap- 
pointed him,  and  then  was  to  begin  the  day  appointed  in 
which  God  was  to  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by 
that  man  whom  he  had  ordained — and  in  that  day,  also, 
Jesus,  as  the  King  who  was  to  reign  in  righteousness, 
was  to  render  to  ev-ery  man  according  to  his  works.  This 
was  the  gospel  day — the  day  referred  to  in  Rom.  ii.  &;c. 

I  will  only  add,  that  the  passage  in  question  is  explained 
as  above  by  Pearce,  Hammond,  Rosenmuller,  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  and  others. 

You  rely  with  all  confidence  on  2  Thess.  i.  6 — 10,  as 
being  "  conclusive  on  the  subject  of  our  controversy." 
But  if  you  will  re-examine  your  remarks,  you  will  per- 
ceive that  the  entire  force  of  the  passage  in  proof  of  end- 
less punishment,  depends  on  the  supposition  that  "  the 
day  of  final  judgment"  is  referred  to.  You  say,  "  In  that 
DAY,  the  day  of  final  judgment,"  &:c.  The  time  specified 
by  the  apostle  is,  '•'■when  he  shall  come  ;^^  ^^  ivhcn  the  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven."  I  have  already 
shown  when  Jesus  was  to  come,  viz.  before  the  close  of 
the  generation  in  which  he  lived.  No  doubt  Paul's  lan- 
guage, when  written,  had  a  future  reference — but  I  can- 
not allow  you  to  assume  that  it  is  yet  future.  Jesus  said 
to  his  disciples,  Luke  xvii.  30,  31,  "  Even  thus  shall  it  be 
in  the  day  when  the  Son  of  man  is  revealed.  In  that  day, 
he  which  shall  be  upon  the  house  top,  and  his  stuifia  the 


TIIEOIXKJICAL    DISCUSSION.  83 

house,  let  him  not  come  down  to  take  it  away ;  and  he 
that  is  in  the  field,  let  him  likewise  not  return  back.  Re- 
member Lot's  wife,"  kc.  Similar  directions  are  given  in 
Matt.  xxiv.  15 — 18.  So  also  in  Luke  xxi.  20 — 23  ;  in  all 
which  places  the  time  of  tribulation  to  Jerusalem  is  ob- 
viously referred  to.  Jesus  said,  "  Then  shall  be  great 
tri/ndation"  and  "These  be  the  days  o{ vengeance,  that  all 
things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled."  In  2  Thess.  i. 
which  you  quote,  it  is  written,  "It  is  a  righteous  thing 
with  God  to  recompense  tribulation  to  them  that  trouble 

you taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not 

God,"  &c. 

As  the  passage  now  under  consideration  was  once  by  me 
considered  a  strong  proof  of  endless  punishment,  and  as  it 
appears  to  be  a  prominent  objection  in  your  mind  ngainst 
Universalism,  allow  me  to  propose  ^full  examination  of  its 
merits.  Four  questions  present  themselves.  1st.  Who 
troubled  the  Thessalonians  ?  for  they  were  the  persons  to  be 
punished  in  the  manner  stated,  2  Thess.  i.  6 — 10;  Acts 
xvii.  5 — 9.  2d.  When  were  they  to  be  punished  ?  This 
question  I  have  already  attempted  to  answer.  3d.  Wiere 
were  they  to  be  punished?  "  From  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,"  fee.  The  Jewish  use  of  this  phrase  should  receive 
due  attention,  2  Kings  xiii.  23 ;  xxiv.  20.  4th.  In  ivhat  was 
the  punishment  to  consist?  "In  everlasting  destruction 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,"  Jer.  xxiii.  39,  40.  Tliis  is 
simply  a  sketch  of  the  subject,  which  I  am  prepared  fully 
to  discuss,  so  soon  as  you  feel  disposed  to  furnish  your 
proofs  that  the  passage  refers  to  the  future  state. 

As  this  letter  has  already  been  extended  beyond  desira- 
ble limits,  I  defer  the  presentation  of  additional  testimo- 
ny in  proof  of  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all 
mankind.  I  wish  not  to  quote  a  text  without  proceeding 
to  show  that  it  has  the  bearing  I  suppose  it  to  have.  And 
I  may  add,  that  ^feiu  passages  to  the  point  are  of  more 
value  than  many  of  an  equivocal  or  doubtful  character. 

With  assurances  of  continued  respect 

I  am  yours,  &c. 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


84  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS- 

Philadelphia,  April  16th,  1834. 

Dear  Sir^ — If  "  reconciliation  always  supposes  unrecon* 
ciliation"  then  it  is  manifest  that  the  all  things  to  bei 
reconciled  are  to  be  understood  as  not  meaning  all  things 
absolutely.  If  there  are  some  things  not  to  be  reconcil- 
ed, then  you  and  I  have  come  to  this  agreement,  that  it 
pleased  the  Father  that  in  Christ  all  fulness  should  dwell,  and 
having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to< 
reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,  that  are  to  be  reconciled, 
or  ever  tvill  be  reconciled  by  him.  You  affirm,  however,  that 
not  all  things  absolutely,  but  all  unreconciled  human  persons 
shall  be  reconciled.  This  I  deny,  for  some  die  in  their  sins ; 
have  never  forgiveness  ;  never  see  life;  but  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  them,  after  they  go  to  their  own  place. 

You  refer  the  whole  of  Matt,  xxiv  to  the  coming  of 
Christ  to  judge  the  Jews  and  Jerusalem ;  and  think  it  is 
in  this  life  alone  that  we  are  to  appear  before  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Christ.  In  the  third  verse  of  that  chapter 
it  is  recorded,  after  Jesus  had  predicted  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  that  his  disciples  came  to  him  on  the  mount 
of  Olives,  saying,  "  Tell  us,  when  shall  these  things  be  ? 
and  what  shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming,  and  of  the  end 
of  the  world?"  These  questions  Christ  ansAvered.  From 
the  4th  to  the  35th  verse  he  gives  the  signs  of  his  coming 
to  judge  Jerusalem;  and  tells  them  that  "  this  genera- 
tion," to  wit,  of  Jews,  or  Hebrews,  "  shall  not  pass  till 
all  these  things  shall  be  fulfilled."  True  it  is,  also,  that 
all  then  living  did  not  pass  to  their  graves  before  Jerusa- 
lem was  destroyed;  and  equally  true  that  this  generation 
of  Jews  still  exists  in  a  state  of  dispersion.  In  the  36th 
verse  Jesus  begins  to  answer  the  question  concerning 
"  the  end  of  the  world,"  saying,  "  But  of  that  day,"  a 
different  day  from  that  of  his  coming  to  judge  Jerusalem, 
of  which  he  had  before  spoken,  — "  of  that  day  and  hour 
knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my 
Father  only."  He  proceeds  to  say  concerning  this  last 
"  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,"  that  it  shall  be  sudden  and 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  85 

unexpected  as  his  coming  in  the  days  of  Noah,  by  the 
judgment  of  the  deluge.  He  exhorts  to  watchfulness  in  rela- 
tion to  the  coming  of  that  day,  and  assures  us  concerning 
each  unfaithful  and  unwise  servant,  that  his  Lord  "  shall 
cut  him  asunder,  and  appoint  him  his  portion  with  hypo- 
crites"— "where  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth." 

I  freely  confess  that  I  believe  in  the  existence  of  devils, 
and  that  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  residence  on  earth, 
many  devils  peculiarly  possessed  some  sinful  mortals  ; 
and  that  by  compelling  them  to  confess  Jesus  Christ, 
while  they  dreaded  and  hated  him,  God  the  Father  was 
glorified.  Freely  I  confess,  too,  that  I  believe  in  other 
holy  angels  than  merely  human  messengers  dwelling  on 
earth,  in  the  flesh ;  and  yet  I  admit  that  any  one  sent  on 
any  errand  whatever,  may  be  called  an  angel. 

You  incidentally  quote  Heb.  ii.  9,  as  evidence  that 
Christ  will  reconcile  all  men  to  himself  so  as  to  save 
them.  "  We  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels,  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory 
and  honour ;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste 
death  for  every  man.''^  The  word  man  is  not  in  the  origi- 
nal.    He  tasted  death  {iTrcp  ;Tavros  {huper pantos)  for  every 

;  leaving  some  noun  in  the  masculine  gender  to  be 

supplied  from  the  context.  What  that  noun  is,  the  next 
verse  shows.  "  For  it  became  him,  for  whom  are  all 
things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many 
SONS  unto  glory,  to  make  the  Captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  suffering."  Hence  we  see  that  the  word 
son  is  to  be  supplied  after  Travrog,  thus,  "  that  he  by  the 
grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for  every  son  ;"  that  he 
might  bring  many  sons  to  glory.  If,  however,  we  admit 
that  Christ  tasted  death  for  every  human  being,  it  will 
not  follow  that  all  Avill  be  saved  from  hell.  He  may  have 
tasted  death  for  every  man,  so  as  to  have  obtained  the 
right  of  raising  every  man  from  the  dead  in  the  last  day. 
He  may  have  tasted  death  for  every  man,  so  as  to  become 
in  his  Mediatorial  character  Lord  of  all  men.  He  died 
for  all  men  in  some  sense,  without  dying  to  save  all  men 
from  impenitence  and  ruin. 

S 


86  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

The  Michael  named  in  Daniel  xiith,  is  taken  to  be  the 
Angel  of  the  Covenant ;  the  Jehovah  sent,  or  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  himself ;  so  that  his  standing  up  forthechil 
dren  of  his  people  at  that  time  of  trouble  to  all  the  wicked, 
which  shall  exceed  all  former  times  of  trouble,  is  no  proof 
that  the  day  of  judgment  will  not  then  have  come,  in 
which  some  shall  awake  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt. 

You  think  I  have  either  misquoted  or  misinterpreted 
Kom.  ii.  7.  The  first  ten  verses  of  that  chapter  convey 
to  my  mind  the  most  explicit  declaration  of  a  retribution 
future  to  the  present  life.  "  Therefore  thou  art  inexcusa- 
ble, 0  man,  whosoever  thou  art,  that  judgest :  for  wherein 
thou  judgest  another,  thou  condemnest  thyself;  for  thou 
that  judgest,  doest  the  same  things."  If  a  man  has 
knowledge  and  conscience  enough  to  judge  his  neighbour, 
he  thereby  evinces  the  righteousness  of  condemning  him, 
when  he  does  the  very  things  which  he  condemns  in  oth- 
ers. "  But  we  are  sure  that  the  judgment  of  God  is  ac- 
cording to  truth,  against  them  which  commit  such  things. 
And  thinkest  thou  this,  0  man,  that  judgest  them  whick 
do  such  things,  and  doest  the  same,  that  thou  shalt  es- 
cape the  judgment  of  God?  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches 
of  his  goodness,  and  forbearance,  and  longsuffering  ;  not 
knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  re- 
pentance ?  But  after  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart 
treasures!  up  unto  thyself  wrath  agamst  the  day  of  \vrath, 
and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God;  who 
will  render  to  every  man,  according  to  his  deeds  :  to  them 
who  by  patient  continuance  in  well-doing,  seek  for  glory 
and  honour  and  immortality,  eternal  life  :  but  unto  them 
that  are  contentious,  and  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but  obey 
unrighteousness ;  indignation  and  wrath,  tribulation  ani 
anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil;  of  the 
Jew  first,  and  also  of  the  Gentile  ;  but  glory,  honour,  and 
peace  to  every  man  that  worketh  good ;  to  the  Jew  first, 
and  also  to  the  Gentile;  for  there  is  no  respect  of  persons 
with  God." 

Here  the  apostU  teaches,  1st,  that  there  is  a  day  of  wrath 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  07 

and  of  the  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God 
coming ;  against  the  cominc:  of  which  men  may  treasure 
up  wrath.  If  all  their  wickedness  is  punished  as  it  is 
committed,  they  treasure  up  nothing  against  any  day  of 
wrath  to  he  subsequently  revealed.  2d.  That  in  this 
day  of  wrath,  when  his  righteous  judgment  shall  be  re- 
vealed, God  WILL  RENDER  unto  evcry  man  according  to 
his  deeds.  3dly.  That  in  rendering' unto  every  one  ac- 
cording to  his  deeds,  God  will  r<?«</cr  eternal  life,  glory, 
HONOUR,  and  peace,  to  them  who  by  patient  continuance 
in  well-doing,  seek  for  glory,  and  honour,  and  immortality. 
If  men  do  not  by  patient  continuance  in  well  doing 
seek  for  glory,  honour,  and  immortality,  it  is  implied 
that  he  will  not  render  to  them  eternal  life.  4thly. 
That  in  the  day  of  the  revelation  of  his  righteous 
judgment,  he  will  render  to  them  that  are  contentious 
and  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but  do  evil,  the  righteous  retri- 
bntion  of  indignation  and  ivrath,  tribulation  and  anguish. 
5thly.  That  this  retribution  both  of  the  good  and  bad  is 
to  be  universal  when  the  day  of  wrath  and  judgment  shall 
be  revealed ;  for  it  will  equally  respect  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles. \yere  it  true  that  God  now  renders  full  and  per- 
fect retribution,  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  promising 
what  he  icill  do  on  a  future  day,  yet  to  be  revealed. 

Other  matters  about  which  we  have  severally  express- 
ed our  opinions  already,  I  consent  to  leave  to  the  judg- 
ment of  our  readers.  I  proceed  to  adduce  further  proof  of 
a  future  state  of  punishment,  which  some  of  the  human 
family  shall  experience. 

Jehovah  says,  "  I  will  not  justify  the  wicked,"  Exod. 
xxiii.  7.  Of  course  God  will  condemn  the  wicked.  The 
Lord  "  will  keep  the  feet  of  his  saints,  and  the  wicked 
shall  be  silent  in  darkness,"  1  Sam.  ii.  9.  Here  the  des- 
tiny of  saints  and  the  wicked  is  contrasted ;  and  this  si- 
lence in  darkness  I  take  to  be  a  description  of  intermina- 
ble gloom  and  despair.  "  The  wicked  is  reserved  to  the 
day  of  destruction.  They  shall  be  brought  forth  to  the 
day  of  wrath,"  Job  xxi.  30.  If  the  present  life  is  the  day 
of  destruction,  and  the  day  of  wrath,  I  see  not  how  the 


88  TITEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

Avicked  are  reserved  in  this  life  to  a  future  day  of  pun- 
ishment. If  they  are  punished  invariably  as  thoy  do 
wickedly,  and  pass  along  in  life,  there  is  no  reserving  of 
them  to  the  day  of  destruction  and  wrath.  If  the  destruc- 
tion to  which  the  wicked  is  reserved,  is  merely  natural 
death,  and  all  are  saved  so  soon  as  they  die,  then  this 
text  instead  of  being  a  solemn  threatening,  as  it  was  ev- 
idently intended  to  be,  becomes  a  precious  assurance  that 
the  Mocked  is  reserved  to  salvation.  This  I  know  comports 
with  your  views,  but  it  seems  to  me  a  most  manifest  con- 
tradiction of  all  those  passages  which  promise  good  to  the 
righteous,  and  by  way  of  contrast,  denounce  evil  to  the 
zcickcd.  If  perishing  and  perdition  mean  but  a  passage 
through  death  into  heaven,  why  should  the  Scriptures  con- 
tinually represent  the  character  and  destiny  of  two  classes 
of  persons  as  widely  different?  Of  the  wicked  it  is  said, 
"Surely  thou  didst  set  them  in  slippery  places:  thou 
vastest  them  down  into  destruction.  How  are  they 
brought  into  desolation,  as  in  a  moment !  thev  are  utterly 
consumed  with  terroi-s,"  Psalm  Ixxiii.  18,  19.  Now  if 
all  at  death  enter  immediately  into  the  perfect  bliss  of 
lieaven,  then  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  are  alike  set 
in  slippery  places,  and  need  not  fear  being  cast  down  into 
destruction  and  consumed  with  terrors  ;  for  the  sooner 
they  are  cast  down,  destroyed,  and  consumed,  the  sooner 
they  arrive  at  perfect  happiness  !  Judas,  according  to  this 
theory,  wasahappy  man,  and  enjoyed  advantages  superior 
to  those  of  his  fellow  apostles,  who  toiled  and  suffered  dur- 
ing many  years  after  his  ascension  to  bliss  before  they  ex- 
perienced the  same  honour. 

Of  him,  however,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  having  be- 
trayed his  Lord,  he  went  and  hanged  himself ;  and  proba- 
bly the  rope  having  broken,  that  "  falling  headlong  he 
burst  asunder  in  the  midst,  and  all  his  bowels  gushed  out." 
*'  Judas  by  transgression  fell"  from  the  *'  ministry  and 
apostleship" — "  that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place,"  Acts 
i.  18,  25.  His  own  place  after  he  hung  himself  was  un- 
doubtedly the  grave  for  his  body.  But  whither  went  his 
soul  ?     You  teach  that  he  was  made  holy  and  happy,  im- 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  89 

mediately,  in  spirit,  so  that  his  oion  place  for  his  immor- 
tal sours  residence  was  paradise.  Happy  man,  to  be 
thus  translated  to  the  abode  of  the  spirits  of  the  just 
madti  perfect !  But,  to  the  destruction  of  this  theory,  Je- 
sus called  Judas  "  the  son  of  perdition,"  John  xvii.  12  ; 
said  he  was  "lost;"  and  added,  "The  Son  of  man  in- 
deed goeth,  as  it  is  written  of  him :  but  v/o  to  that  man 
by  whom  tiie  Son  of  man  is  betrayed  !  Good  were  it  for 
that  man  if  he  had  never  been  born,"  Mark  xiv.  21.  We 
deem  those  accursed,  lost,  miserable  for  ever,  who  die 
under  the  wo  of  the  only  Saviour  and  Judge  of  sinners. 
You  think  Judas  was  blessed  perfectly,  so  soon  as  he 
^;trangled  himself.  It  must  have  been  a  blessed  ico,  then 
which  Christ  pronounced  on  him ;  and  thus  you  call  evil 
good,  and  good  evil.  Finally,  if  Judas  entered  heaven 
at  death,  and  has  been  perfectly  happy  ever  since,  ahd 
will  continue  so,  through  everlasting  ages,  it  was  a  very 
good  thing  indeed  for  him  to  have  been  born  ;  and  he 
ought  .to  contradict  the  Saviour  in  this  matter,  through 
everlasting  ages.  I  remain,  dear  sir,  yours,  with  the 
best  wishes  for  your  salvation. 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  April  21,  1834. 
Dear  Sir — That  ^^reconciliation  always  supposes  pre- 
vious unrcconciliation^^^  is  too  obvious  to  require  proof — 
and  that  "  the  stones  of  the  street  and  the  cattle  of  the 
hills"  can  never  be  reconciled  to  God,  is  equally  obvious 
— for  they  never  were  and  never  can  be  unreconciled. 
When  it  is  said,  "  It  pleased  the  Father  that  in  Christ 
should  all  fulness  dwell,"  you  do  not  suppose  that  all  the 
fulness  of  irrational  beings  and  of  inanimate  matter  is 
referred  to,  but,  "  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodi- 
ly." So  when  it  is  written,  "It  pleased  the  Father  to 
jreconcile  all  things  to  himself,"  I  understand  the  testi- 


90  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

mony  to  declare,  that  it  is  the  purpose  and  pleasure  of  the 
Father  to  reconcile  to  himself  all  the  rational  h<.ins;s  that 
ever  were,  or  ever  will  he,  in  a  state  of  unreconciliation. 
The  remarks  in  my  last  letter,  together  with  the  quota- 
tions from  Campbell,  Stuart,  and  the  Bible,  were  in- 
tended to  establish  this  position. 

To  the  cited  conclusion  you  object,  because,  to  use  your 
own  words,  "  some  die  in  their  sins ;  have  never  forgive- 
ness ;  never  see  life  ;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on 
them,  after  they  go  to  their  own  place."  In  this  sentence 
you  have  given  us  isolated  parts  of  four  Scripture  passa- 
ges, to  which  your  opinion  of  their  reference  is  appended, 
without  attempting  to  show  that  they  have  the  slightest 
bearing  on  the  point  in  debate.  I  am  aware  that  those 
passages  are  applied  to  the  future  state,  and  that  they  are 
deemed  conclusive  on  the  subject  of  our  controversy,  by 
a  majority  of  the  Christian  community.  But  I  am  also 
sensible  that  the  quastion  before  us  is  not  to  be  determined 
by  ballot.  So  soon  as  you  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
texts  you  have  partially  quoted  stand  in  opposition  to  the 
final  reconciliation  of  all  mankind,  I  will  attend  to  your 
reasoning. 

In  endeavouring  to  destroy  the  force  of  my  remarks  on 
Malt,  xxiv,  and  parallel  passages,  you  allow  that  from 
tlie  4th  verse  to  the  35th,  "  Jesus  gives  the  signs  of  his 
coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem."  But  you  add:  "In  the 
36th  verse  Jesus  begins  to  answer  the  question  concern- 
ing the  '  end  of  the  world,'  saying,  '  Bl'T  of  that  day,' 
a  diflerent  day  from  that  of  his  coming  to  judge  Jerusa- 
lem," Sec.  I  should  be  pleased  to  learn  your  reasons  for 
supposing  that  "  a  different  day"  is  referred  to.  In  Luke 
xvii.  24 — 36,  the  deluge  and  the  destruction  of  Sodom  are 
undoubtedly  spoken  of,  as  illustrative  of  the  sudden  and 
unexpected  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  to  destroy  Jerusa- 
lem— and  until  you  present  some  proof  to  the  contrary,  I 
shall  be  justified'  in  assuming  that  the  same  is  true  of  the 
deluge  as  mentioned  in  Matt.  xxiv.  37  et  seq. — especially 
as  the  passages  are  confessedly  parallel. 

You  may  porJiaps  be  disposed  to  rest  your  proof  on  the 


THKOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  91 

phrase  "  end  of  the  world."  In  my  remarks  on  the  para- 
ble of  the  tares,  in  a  former  letter,  I  endeavoured  to  show 
that  the  phrase  avvTc\iia  twv  awviov  signifies,  not  the  end  of 
the  vuUcrial  icorh/,  but  the  end  of  the  aqc.  And  I  quoted 
the  Scriptures  in  proof  of  the  position.  The  testimony 
of  your  own  commentators  was  added  by  way  of  confir- 
mation. As  you  have  hitherto  neglected  to  notice  this 
important  branch  of  our  discussion,  I  beg  leave  respect- 
fully to  suggest  that  it  be  now  attended  to.  It  should 
not  be  forgotten  that  Jesus  appeared  in  the  end  of  the 
worlds  {ai'vre^cla  rwv  aluvcov)  to  put  away  siu  by  the  sacrifice 
of  himself,  Heb.  ix.  26.  See  also  1  Cor.  x.  11.  I  sin- 
cerely hope  that  your  next  letter  will  contain  your  reasons 
for  supposing  that  I  have  erred  in  the  interpretation  given 
of  the  phrase  in  question.  I  also  desire  you  to  furnish 
your  reasons  for  applying  any  part  of  Matt,  xxiv  to  the 
concerns  of  a  future  life. 

In  your  confession  of  belief  "  in  the  existence  of  de- 
vils," you  give  us  to  understand,  that  God  may  be  glori- 
fied by  an  extorted  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  Christ !  You 
say,  "  In  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  residence  on  earth, 
■many  devils  peculiarly  possessed  some  sinful  mortals; 
.and  that  by  compelling  them  to  confess  Jesus  Christ, 
while  they  dreaded  and  hated  him,  God  the  Father  was 
-glorified."  According  to  this  statement,  devils  compelled 
siii^iers  to  speak  the  truth — (wliich  was  rather  out  of  cha- 
racter in  any  one  connected  with  the  father  of  lies) — and 
God  the  Father  was  glorified  by  an  extorted  confession  of 
-Jesus  Christ,  coming  from  the  lips  of  those  who  dreaded 
and  hated  him!  In  mij  view,  sir,  the  Supreme  Being  can 
only  be  glorified  by  a  sincere  and  heart-felt  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  truth,  based  in  the  conviction  of  the  under- 
standing. 

As  to  the  two  men  possessed  of  demons,  who  confessed 
that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  they  were  unquestionably 
persons  of  disordered  minds,  who  had  heard  of  the  fame 
and  miracles  of  the  Messiah.  They  were  soon  restored  to 
the  proper  use  of  their  intellect,  and  sat  at  the  feet  of 
Jesus  in  their   right  mind.      The   popular   superstition 


92  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

-which  supposes  that  fallen  angels  ever  possessed  any  of 
human  kind  is  equally  destitute  of  foundation  with  the 
traditionary  error  of  the  Jews,  namely,  that  the  spirits  of 
dead  men  inhabited  the  bodies  of  the  living. 

It  is  true  that  the  word  man  is  not  in  the  original  of 
Heb.  ii.  9,  but  I  cannot  agree  that  the  word  son,  as  a  sub- 
stitute, would  express  the  meaning  of  the  apostle ;  nor  do 
I  think  it  would  accord  Avith  the  scope  of  the  context. 
My  reasons  are  as  follows : 

We  are  certified  that  "  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ," 
1  Cor.  xi.  3 — in  w^hich  passage  the  pen  of  inspiration  has 
not  omitted  a  word,  to  be  supplied  by  individuals  to  whom 
the  record  might  descend.  If  Christ  be  the  head  of  every 
man,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  tasted  death  for 
every  man. 

In  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  it  is  written  of  Jesus,  that  he  "gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all  h-nt^  ravrcu?  to  be  testified  in  due 
time."  In  verse  4th  we  read,  that  God  our  Saviour  "  will 
have  all  men  Travra?  av^pajTov?  to  be  saved  and  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth."  If  you  allow  that  the  will  here 
mentioned  is  a  determinate  purpose  of  the  Almighty,  then 
the  doctrine  I  have  engaged  to  sustain  is  established.  If 
you  allege  that  it  is  simply  a  will  of  desire,  you  must  either 
allow  that  Jesus  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all  men  abso- 
lutely, which  is  equivalent  to  tasting  death  for  every  man  ; 
or  attempt  to  show  how  God  can  desire  the  salvation  of 
any  for  whom  Jesus  did  not  give  himself  a  ransom. 

If  Jesus  did  not  give  himself  a  ransom  for  all  men — then 
upon  your  own  grounds,  it  is  impossible  that  all  men  should 
be  saved.  This  will  run  you  into  the  doctrine  of  the 
"  Confession  of  Faith,"  namely,  that  the  number  of  angels 
•and  men  elected  from  all  eternity  to  everlasting  life,  "is 
so  definite  and  certain,  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased 
or  diminished."  In  this  case,  you  Avill  explain  youi 
reasons  for  calling  on  all  men  to  believe,  with  the  assur- 
ance that  all  men  may  be  saved. 

There  would  be  no  impropriety  in  reading  Heb.  ii.  9, 
thus :  "  That  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death 
for  all." 


THEOLOGICAL    PigCUSSTON.  93 

The  context  of  tlie  passage  cannot,  in  my  judgment, 

i'astify  any  other  llian  the  foregoing  interpretation.  "  Thou 
last  put  ALL  THINGS  jravra  ill  subjectioii  Under  his  feet. 
For  in  tliat  he  put  all  t«  rravTa  in  subjection  under  him, 
he  left  nothing  that  is  not  put  under  him.  [God  excepted, 
as  in  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  and  as  some  old  MSS.  read  on  the 
text  under  examination,  '  that  he  should  taste  death  for 
ALL,  God  excepted.']  But  now  we  see  not  yet  all  things 
TO  navra  put  uudcr  him."  I  ask  whether  it  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  apostle,  after  penning  this  explicit 
testimony,  should  intend  to  say  that  Jesus  did  not  taste 
death  for  the  all  thimrsXo  be  put  in  subjection  under  him? 
Your  principal  argument  is  drawn  from  the  fact  that 
"  many  sons"  are  spoken  of  in  the  10th  verse.  But  this 
special  reference  to  those  who  had  already  been  brought 
into  subjection  to  Christ,  must  not  be  misunderstood  to 
militate  against  the  universal  subjection  previously  de- 
clared. The  apostle  had  stated  expressly,  that  the  dis- 
ciples did  not  yet  see  all  things  subdued  to  the  Messiah — 
but  the  train  of  his  reasoning  shows  that  this  universal 
subjection  would  certainly  be  accomplished.  The  "  many 
sons"  who  had  been  brought  to  glory  were  the  first  fruits, 
— as  in  verse  11  ;  "for  both  he  that  sanctifieth  and  they 
who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one."  So  in  1  Cor.  vi.  9 — 
11,  after  mentioning  a  number  of  evil  characters,  and  de- 
claring that  such  should  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God, 
the  apostle  adds,  "  And  such  ivcj^e  some  of  you  :  but  ye 
are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified." 

Indeed,  the  verse  in  which  the  "  many  sons"  are  spoken 
of  confirms  the  foregoing  view  of  the  subject.  "  For  it 
became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  m  Travroy  and  by 
[through]  whom  are  all  things,  m  -avra,  in  bringing  many 
sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  Captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  sufifering."  When  was  Jesus  made  per- 
fect through  suffering  ?  Plainly,  "  in  hringin2:many  sons,^^ 
the  first  fruits  of  all  things,  "  to  glory."  It  is  written, 
Rom.  xi.  36,  "  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  in  him, 
are  all  things."  Do  you  suppose  that  Jesus  still  suflfers  ? 
Do  you  suppose  he  is  not  yet  made  perfect  ?    To  be  brief: 


94  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

In  my  judgment,  Jesus  was  made  perfect  "  in  hringtng 
many  sons  to  glory;"  that  in  his  Mediatorial  character  he 
is  Lord  of  all ;  and  that,  by  him,  God  will  reconcile  all 
things  to  himself. 

In  Rom.  viii,  the  same  apostle  presents  testimony  in 
confirmation  of  the  above  view  of  the  subject.  He  speaks 
of  the  sons,  the  children,  who  had  already  received  the 
spirit  of  adoption,  and  says,  "For  I  reckon  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared 
with  the  glory  w^hich  shall  be  revealed  in  us,  [that  is,  the 
sons,  the  believers.]  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the 
■creature  [rather  the  creation']  waitelh  for  the  manifestation 
of  the  SONS  OF  God.  For  the  creature  [the  creation]  was 
made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by  reason  of 
him  who  hath  subjected  the  same  in  hope,  because  the 
creature  [the  creation]  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God.  For  ave  [the  sons]  know  that  the  whole 
creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until 
now.  And  not  only  they,  but  ourselves  also  which  have 
the  FIRST  FRUITS  of  the  Spirit,  even  ice  ourselves  groan  with- 
in ourselves,  waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemp- 
tion of  our  body."  I  have  been  particular  in  emphasizing 
ibese  passages;  and  you  will  perceive  that  the  words  also 
and  first  fruits,  as  used  by  the  apostle,  add  peculiar  force 
to  the  train  of  his  reasoning.  The  soa2s  who  had  the  first 
fruits  of  the  Spirit;  and  the  creation,  which  should  also  be 
delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  same 
glorious  liberty — embrace,  in  my  estimation,  the  whole 
race  of  mankind. 

Your  remarks  on  Dan.  xii,  will  be  of  no  advantage  to 
your  argument,  unless  you  show  that  our  Saviour,  in 
citing  Daniel's  prophecy,  in  Matt.  xxiv.  15 — 21,  misapplied 
it  to  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

Your  reasoning  on  Rom.  ii.  1 — 10,  rests  chiefly  on  the 
supposition  that  those  verses  contain  a  yet  future  reference. 
You  say,  "  Here  the  apostle  teaches,  that  there  is  a  day 
of  wrath  and  of  the  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment 
of  God  coming."    It  should  not  be  forgotten,  that  because 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  95 

a  passage  ichen  written,  liad  a  future  reference,  it  does  not 
follow  tlmt  it  sliU  has  a  future  reft'rence.  You  say, 
moreover,  "  Were  it  true  that  God  now  renders  full  and 
perfect  retribution,  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  pro- 
mising what  he  ivill  do  on  a  future  day,  yet  to  be  revealed." 
But  I  cannot  allow  you  to  assume  that  "  a  future  day, 
YET  to  be  revealed,"  is  spoken  of  in  the  passages  before 
us.  Paul  certified  that  the  things  mentioned  in  the  ten 
verses  which,  in  your  judgment,  teach  a  retribution  future 
to  the  present  life,  should  be  accomplished,  "  in  the  day 
when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ 
according  to  my  gospel."  In  my  last  letter,  on  Acts  xvii. 
31,  I  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  day  here  mentioned 
•was  the  reign  of  Christ  in  the  kingdom  appointed  him  by 
the  Father.  "  God  has  appointed  a  day  in  which  He  will 
jud^e  the  Avorld  by  that  3ian  whom  He  hath  ordained." 
This  declaration  was  future  in  its  reference  when  written 
—for  it  pointed  to  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  his 
kingdom.  That  coming  was  to  be  before  the  disciples 
had  gone  over  all  the  cities  of  Israel,  Matt.  x.  23— before 
John's  departure,  John  xxi.  22— before  the  generation  in 
which  Jesus  lived,  should  have  passed  away,  Matt.  xxiv. 
29-34. 

When  it  is  written  that,  under  the  gospel,  God  would 
judge  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ,  are  we  to  infer  that  God 
had  not  previously  judged  the  world  Hlmself  ?  When  we 
are  certified  that  God  committed  all  judgment  to  the  Son, 
are  we  to  conclude  that  God  had  not  previously  exercised 
judgment  in  the  earth  ?  John  v.  22  :  Jer.  ix.  24:  Psalm 
Iviii.  11. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  God  will  condemn  the 
wicked — but  it  does  not  follow  that  He  will  condemn 
them  to  endless  punishment.  There  can  be  as  little  doubt 
that  the  Lord  "  will  keep  the  feet  of  His  saints,  and  the 
wicked  shall  be  silent  in  darkness ;"  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  you  are  correct,  when  you  say,  "this  silence  in  dark- 
ness, I  take  to  be  a  description  of  interminable  gloom  and 
despair."  /  take  it  to  be  a  description  of  calamity  in  the 
earth. 


96  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

You  quote  Job  xxi.  30 — "  The  wicked  is  reserved  to  the 
day  of  destruction.  Tlicy  shall  be  brought  forth  to  the 
day  of  wrath,"  And  you  add,  "  If  the  present  life  is  the 
day  of  destruction,  and  the  day  of  wrath,  I  see  not  how 
the  wicked  are  reserved  in  this  life  to  a  future  day  of  pun- 
ishment." Answer:  Korah  and  his  company  Avere  re- 
served until  the  people  had  departed  "from  the  tents  of 
those  wicked  men" — and  then  the  earth  opened  and  swal- 
lowed them  up,  with  all  that  appertained  to  them.  Num. 
xvi.  The  Sodomites  were  reserved  until  Lot  had  depart- 
ed from  the  city — then  they  were  destroyed,  together  with 
all  that  grew  upon  the  ground.  Gen.  xix.  The  antedilu- 
vians were  reserved  until  Noah  and  his  family  were  safe 
in  the  ark — then  came  the  day  of  destruction,  and  every 
living  thing  died  that  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  earthy 
Gen.  viii.  You  thus  perceive  that  the  wicked  are  reserv- 
ed to  the  day  of  destruction,  and  of  wrath,  in  the  present 
life. 

When  you  allege  that  according  to  my  views,  "the 
wicked  are  reserved  to  salvation,"  you  forget  that  there  is^ 
such  a  thing  as  the  retort  courteous.  I  might  say  to  you,, 
that,  according  to  your  views.  God  w^as  so  kind  to  the 
saints  of  Israel,  to  righteous  Lot,  and  to  Noah,  as  not  to^ 
permit  them  to  be  destroyed,  in  the  judgments  of  Avhich 
they  were  witnesses  respectively — so  very  hind  to  them, 
that  He  Avas  determined  they  should  linger  a  life  of 
wretchedness  in  this  evil  world — and  so  exceedingly  gra-- 
cious  to  them  ward,  that  He  was  not  willing  they  shouldl 
go  to  heaven,  either  by  a  gap  in  the  earth,  a  flood  of  water,, 
or  of  fire  !  I  am  satisfied  that  ridicule  or  satire,  when 
properly  used,  is  as  lawful  an  argument  as  is  to  be  found 
in  the  vocabulary;  but  I  wish  not  to  use  it,  not  even  in 
self-defence,  if  I  can  avoid  it.  You  have,  however,  re- 
sorted to  this  weapon ;  particularly  in  your  remarks  on 
the  case  of  Judas,  in  connexion  with  a  quotation  from 
Psalm  Ixxiii.  18,  19 — and  you  cannot  reasonably  find 
fault,  if  I  should  so  far  imitate  your  example,  as  to  show 
that  the  sword  of  satire  is  a  two-edged  blade. 

You  say,  in  speaking  of  the  death  of  Judas,  "  Happy 


TIIKOI.OGICAL    DISCUSSION.  97 

man,  lo  be  thus  translated  to  the  abode  of  the  spirits  of 
the  just  made  perfect !  !  You  think  Judas  was  blessed 
perfectly,  so  soon  as  he  strangled  liimself.  It  must  have 
been  a  blc.'^scd  iro,  then,  Avhicli  Christ  pronounced  on  him; 
and  thus  you  call  evil  good,  and  good  evil." 

Allow  me  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  cases  recorded 
in  Scripture.  In  Dcut.  xxxii.  48 — 52,  it  is  thus  written: 
"  The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  that  self-same  day,  saying, 

Get  thee  up  into  this  mountain and  die  in  the 

mount  whither  thou  goest  up,  and  be  gathered  unto  thy 
people  :  as  Aaron  thy  brother  died  m  Mount  Hor,  and 
was  gathered  unto  his  people  ;  because  ye  trespassed 
AGAINST  ME  among  the  children  of  Israel."  Following 
your  example,  I  might  say,  "  Happy  men,  to  be  thus  trans- 
lated to  the  abodes  of  the  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect, 
because  they  trespassed  against  the  Lord !  You  teach,  that 
Moses  and  Aaron  were  blessed  perfectly,  so  soon  as  they 
died.  It  must  have  been  a  blessed  punishment,  then,  which 
God  pronounced  upon  them ;  and  thus  you  call  evil  good, 
and  good  evil." 

In  2  Kings  xx.  1,  it  is  written  that  the  good  king  Heze- 
kiah  was  sick,  nigh  unto  death — but  God,  as  a  token  of 
favour,  added  fifteen  years  to  his  life.  Miserable  man !  to 
be  kept  out  of  heaven  for  fifteen  years,  as  a  favour  ! 

Paul,  in  Phil.  ii.  27,  says,  in  speaking  of  his  fellow 
labourer  in  the  gospel,  Epaphroditus,  "  For  indeed  he  was 
sick  nigh  unto  death;  but  God  had  mercy  on  him;  and 
not  on  him  only,  but  on  me  also,  lest  I  should  have  sorrow 
upon  sorrow."  Cruel  mercy  !  not  to  allow  Epaphroditus 
to  go  to  heaven  !  And  how  unfeeling  was  Paul,  to  say, 
that  he  should  have  had  sorrow  upon  sorrow,  if  his  fellow 
labourer  had  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  have  died  and 
gone  to  heaven  ! 

And  now,  dear  sir,  allow  me  to  say,  in  all  sincerity  and 
affection,  I  regret  having  been  under  the  necessity  of  thus 
plainly  pointing  out  the  results  of  your  own  reasoning.  I 
humbly  trust  that  circumstances  of  a  like  character  will 
not  again  occur,  in  the  progress  of  our  friendly  contro- 
versy. 

9 


98  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

Your  ar^iments  on  the  case  of  Judas,  are  1st.  John  xvii. 
12,  "  While  I  was  with  them  (the  disciples)  in  the  world, 
I  kept  them  in  thy  name ;  those  that  thou  gavest  me  I 
have  Jccpt^  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  a-rw'Xtro,  but  the  son  of 
perdition,  airwA£('nf ;  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled." 
But  do  you  seriously  suppose  it  Avas  essential  to  the  ful- 
filment of  the  Scripture,  that  Judas  should  be  doomed  to 
endless  punishment  ?  What  is  meant  by  Christ  having 
hitherto  kept  his  disciples  in  his  Father's  name?  Plainly, 
that  he  had,  as  yet,  preserved  them  faithful  in  his  cause. 
What  is  meant  by  his  having  lost  none?  Simply  that 
none,  with  the  exception  named,  had  abandoned  it.  What 
is  meant  by  one  being  lost  ?  Plainly  nothing  more  than 
that  one  had  abandoned  the  cause  of  Christ.  You  are 
aware  that  the  words  translated  lost  and  perdition  are  the 
same,  excepting  that  the  former  is  the  verb,  and  the  latter 
the  noun.  "  None  of  them  is  lost  but  the  son  of  perdition; 
that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled."  The  Scripture  here 
noticed  is  Psalm  xli.  9.  Jesus  had  quoted  this  Scripture 
in  the  early  part  of  the  evening.  "  I  speak  not  of  you  all ; 
I  know  whom  I  have  chosen  ;  but  that  the  Scripture  may 
be  fulfilled.  He  that  eateth  bread  with  me,  hath  lifted  up 
his  heel  against  me,"  that  is,  he  has  become  my  adver- 
sary. 

2d.  You  quote  from  Acts  i, — "  that  he  might  go  to  his 
own  place."  On  this  you  should  have  attemptedlo  show, 
1st.  That  these  words  were  spoken  of  Judas.  Many  of 
the  best  critics  and  commentators,  Hammond,  Gilpin, 
Clarke,  &c.,  allege  that  they  were  spoken  of  Matthias, 
who  v/as  elected  to  fill  the  place  vacated  by  the  defection 
of  Judas.  2d.  That,  even  allowing  the  words  to  be  spoken 
of  Judas,  "  his  own  place"  signified  a  state  or  place  of 
endless  punishment.  I  am  not  disposed  to  allow  much 
force  to  inferences  of  an  equivocal  character.  See  Judges 
ix.  55  ;  Numbers  xxiv.  25. 

3d.  Your  strongest  argument  is  drawn  from  the  Sa- 
viour's declaration,  "  Good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had 
aever  been  born."  But  it  should  be  remembered  that  this 
was  a  cominon  proverb  among  the  Jews,  and  also  among 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  99 

Other  nations.  Doctor  Adam  Clarke,  in  his  Commentary 
on  Acts  i,  quotes  many  examples  from  Schoettgen,  which 
clearly  show  the  Jewish  use  of  the  proverb  to  imply  no 
mure,  than  that  such  a  one  was  a  wretched,  miserable 
creature.  Koecher  informs  us,  that  "  the  very  phrase,  it 
is  better  not  to  be  born,  is  used  by  the  best  Greek  authors 
to  signify  a  miserable  condition  or  calamity."  Rosen- 
MULLER  says  that  Gataker  has  quoted  similar  expressions 
from  the  heathen  writers,  both  of  Rome  and  of  Greece. 

But  we  need  no  otlier  light  than  the  Bible  affords,  on 
this  subject.  Solomon  says,  "If  a  man  beget  a  hundred 
children  ....  and  his  soul  be  not  filled  with  good,  and 
also  that  he  have  no  burial,  I  say  that  an  untimely  birth  is 
better  than  he,''  Eccl.  vi.  3.  See  also  Eccl.  iv.  1 — 3,  Job 
cursed  the  day  of  his  birth,  Job  iii.  3 — 16;  x.  18, 19;  Jere- 
miah also,  Je'r.  xv.  10,  17 — yet  you  do  not  suppose  that 
either  of  these  individuals  was  doomed  to  interminable 
wretchedness. 

Should  any  of  our  readers  feel  disposed  to  examine  this 
subject  more  minutely,  they  may  consult  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke  on  Acts  i, — who,  although  an  unwavering  be- 
liever in,  and  an  advocate  of,  the  doctrine  of  endless  pun- 
ishment, declares  his  conviction  "  that  there  is  no  positive 
evidence  of  the  final  damnation  of  Judas  in  the  sacred 
text."  And  I  need  scarcely  add,  that  in  the  discussion  of 
a  question  of  so  much  importance  as  the  one  before  us, 
nothing  but  positive  evidence  should  be  admitted. 

I  regret  exceedingly  that  you  have  declined  entering- 
f'tlli/  into  an  examination  of  some  of  the  passages  you 
have  cited  in  proof  of  endless  punishment.  It  is  impossi- 
ble to  do  entire  justice  to  a  dozen  passages  in  any  one 
letter.  I  am  especially  solicitous  that  you  should  consent 
to  discuss  2  Thess.  i.  6—10  in  detail— inasmuch  as  you 
deem  that  passage  "conclusive  on  the  subject  of  our  con- 
troversy," and  inasmuch  also  as  you  say,  it  "  must  for 
ever  prevent  you  from  becoming  a  Universalist." 

With  many  sincere  wishes  for  your  continued  health 
and  happiness,  I  am  respectfully  yours,  &c. 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


100  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  April  28th,  1834. 

It  is  ray  design,  my  dear  sir,  to  avoid  prolixity  and 
learned  references  as  much  as  possible,  because  I  wish 
our  discussion  may  be  read  by  persons  who  must  decide 
according  to  the  common  sense  which  God  has  given 
them,  whether  your  system  of  doctrine  or  mine  is  con- 
formable to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
It  seems,  however,  absolutely  necessary  for  us  to  recur 
occasionally  to  the  original  words  employed  by  the  in- 
spired penmen  ;  and  any  of  our  readers  Avho  do  not  under- 
stand Greek  and  Hebrew  must  judge  from  the  general 
tenor  of  any  passage  referred  to,  which  of  us  is  right  in 
his  interpretation  of  any  disputed  terms. 

In  Heb.  ix.  26,  we  read  of  Christ,  "  but  now,  once,  in 
the  end  of  the  Avorld  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  himself."  The  original  expression  is  not 
avvTiXcia  Ts  aiujvos,  the  cnd  of  the  age,  or  of  the  world,  but 
uvvTiXda  Twv  at'wvwv,  the  ending  together  of  the  ages.  The 
former  expression  would  refer  to  the  time  of  Christ's 
second  coming;  but  the  latter  describes  the  time  when  he 
actually  came  to  make  atonement.  An  interminable  past 
duration  preceded  his  appearing,  and  an  interminable 
duration  is  to  succeed.  For  everlasting  portions  of  dura- 
tion are  repi-esented  as  coming  together  at  the  point  of 
the  Saviour's  residence  on  earth.  The  Avord  atwv  you 
know  signifies  being  always.  If  there  is  any  word  in  the 
Greek  language  which  denotes  endless  continuance,  it  is 
this.  It  is  the  term  employed  to  express  the  eternity  of 
the  Deity,  and  the  duration  of  heavenly  happiness.  Be- 
cause Christ  came  in  the^'om^  ending  of  the  ages  of  past 
and  future  eternity,  it  does  not  follow,  that  he  Avill  not 
come  again  in  the  closing  scene  of  this  Avorld,  to  judge  the 
whole  race  of  man  in  righteousness. 

The  disciples  asked  after  the  signs  of  Christ's  coming 
to  destroy  Jerusalem,  Matt.  xxiv.  3,  and  also  of  the  end  of 
the  world.  Here  m  aiwog,  in  the  singular,  is  used,  and 
evidently,  refers  to  something  different  from  the  duration 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  101 

of  the  temple,  or  the  generation  of  Jews  then  living ;  be- 
cause they  inquired  "  When  shall  these  things  be  ?"  in 
relation  to  the  desolation  of  the  holy  city,  and  then  subjoin- 
ed their  interrogation  about  thr  end  of  the  tvorhl.  Had  the 
end  of  the  world,  and  the  destruction  of  the  temple  been 
the  same  thing,  their  second  question  would  have  been 
merely  a  repetition  of  the  first.  Besides,  Christ,  having 
spoken  in  reply  to  the  first  question,  when  he  comes  to  the 
language  of  the  36th  verse,  "  But  of  that  day,"  evidently 
contrasts  that  day  of  which  he  subsequently  discourses  with 
the  time  of  which  he  had  been  previously  speaking. 

In  Acts  XV.  18,  all  God's  works  are  said  to  have  been 
known  to  him,  av  aitovoi,  from  eternity.  Here  the  word 
demotes  the  whole  of  past  duration.  In  Matt.  vi.  13,  in 
which  it  is  said  "  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power, 
and  the  glory /or  eye;-,"  tk  Tovg  aii^va^,  the  expression  means 
the  whole  of  God's  future  duration.  While  God  exists, 
let  him  be  glorified. 

That  the  word  translated  for  ever  and  everlasting  is 
sometimes  employed  to  denote  the  whole  duration  of  things 
which  are  not  strictly  speaking  everlastings  is  granted ; 
but  this  accommodated  use  of  the  term  cannot  destroy 
its  original  meaning  of  endless  existence.  The  hills  are 
indeed  called  everlasting,  because  they  are  to  last  so  long 
as  the  earth ;  but  it  will  not  hence  follow,  that  the  exist- 
ence of  God,  or  of  the  human  soul,  or  of  the  happiness 
of  the  saints,  or  of  the  punishment  of  the  lost,  is  not  ab- 
solutely interminable.  The  everlasting  punishment  of  a 
human  person  is  punishment  to  be  continued  while  that 
person  shall  last;  just  as  the  everlasting  mountains  of 
the  earth,  are  mountains  to  last  as  long  as  the  earth  itself. 
In  Matt,  xxv,  the  Saviour  tells  us,  that  the  reign  of  the 
heavens  may  be  likened  to  the  dealingc  of  a  bridegroom 
with  ten  virgins,  five  of  whom  were  rnwise,  and  who 
"not  being  prepared  to  enter  with  him  int^  the  hall  of  the 
wedding  entertainment,  were  for  ever  excluded.  Against 
them  "  the  door  was  shut."  Afterwards  they  came,  "say- 
ing. Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us.  But  he  answ<?red  and  said, 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  know  you  not."  Now  if  the 
9* 


103  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

bridegroom  of  the  church  should  thus  treat  all  who  are 
without  the  oil  of  Divine  love  in  their  hearts  ;  if  he  shall 
disown  them  and  exclude  them  from  his  presence,  when 
he  shall  bring  his  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife,  into  his  paradise 
above,  they  will  experience,  wherever  they  may  exist,  all 
that  we  mean  by  the  damnation  of  hell.  The  applica- 
tion which  Christ  made  of  his  parable  of  the  ten  vir- 
gins was  this,  "Watch,  therefore,  for  ye  know  neither 
the  day  nor  the  hour  wherein  the  Son  of  man  cometh." 
To  this  he  subjoins  another  illustration  of  his  dealings 
with  mankind:  "  For  he,"  meaning  the  Son  of  man,  not 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  words  were  supplied  by  the 
translators.  "  is  as  a  man  travelling  into  a  far  country,  who 
called  his  own  servants,  and  delivered  unto  them  his 
goods."  This  far  country  to  which  the  Son  of  man  is 
gone,  is  heaven ;  whence  he  shall  return  to  reckon  with 
his  servants  according  to  every  man's  several  ability,  and 
the  talents  intrusted  to  each.  Those  who  have  made  a 
right  US'"  of  their  talents,  he  informs  us,  shall  enter  into 
tbe  joy  of  their  lord.  But  among  the  servants,  one  sloth- 
ful and  wicked  one  was  found,  who  entertained  the  most 
unreasonable  prejudices  against  his  master,  and  made  no 
right  use  of  the  talent  intrusted  to  him.  Figuratively 
speaking,  he  wrapped  his  talent  in  a  napkin  and  hid  it  in 
the  earth.  From  him,  therefore,  his  lord  took  away  the 
talent,  saying, /romA^'/n  that  hath  not  used  his  talent  aright, 
!ihaU  he  talcn  away  even  that  which  he  hath  ;  "  and  cast  ye 
the  unprofitable  servant  into  utter  darkness :  there  shall 
be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth."  In  this  way  Jesus 
Christ  has  said  that  he  himself  will  deal  with  mankind, 
in  exercising  his  reign,  the  reign  of  the  heavens  over 
them.  Lest,  however,  there  should  be  any  erroneous 
opinion  indulged  on  the  application  of  this  parable  of  the 
talents,  our  Lord  immediately  continues  to  say,  "  When 
the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy 
angels  with  him  ;"  which  cannot  mean  his  coming  in 
judgment  on  Jerusalem,  nor  any  coming  except  his  last, 
for  at  no  time  have  all  the  holy  ansels.  come  with  him  to 
our  world  ;  "  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glo- 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  lOg 

rv."  He  came  lo  our  Avorltl  in  the  time  of  the  incaraa- 
lion,  not  in  his  glo}'i/,  but  in  liis  humiliaiion.  He  came 
not  willi  all  his  holy  an^rels,  nor  with  any  of  them  in 
glory,  when  he  came  as  the  babe  of  Bethlehem  and  the 
man  of  sorrows.  The  time  of  this  comin<T  is  clearly 
shown  to  be  future  in  the  next  sentence,  for  it  is  said, 
"and  before  him,  shall  be  e^athered  all  nations."  Never 
yet  has  he  come  to  our  world  with  all  his  holy  angels,  and 
gathered  all  nations  before  him.  When  he  came  to  de- 
stroy Jerusalem  after  his  ascension,  he  came  merely  in 
the  exercise  of  his  kingly  authority  lo  one  nation,  to  visit 
them  with  great  national  judgments  ;  he  came  without 
his  holy  angels,  by  the  Roman  sword,  famine,  pestilence, 
and  civil  war;  and  he  did  not  gather  all  of  one  nation  be- 
fore him. 

Besides,  wlien  he  shall  be  thus  seated  on  his  throne  of 
glory  and  of  judgment,  and  shall  have  gathered  all  na- 
tions before  him,  then  "he  shall  separate  them  one  from 
another,  as  a  shepherd  dividcth  his  sheep  from  the  goats." 
A  shepherd  having  through  the  day  suffered  his  sheep 
and  goats  to  run  together  promiscuously,  was  Avont  at 
night,  having  gathered  all  together,  to  separate  them  one 
from  another,  that  they  might  be  folded  in  separate  folds 
through  the  night.  Thus,  in  the  close  of  the  day  of  this 
world,  the  Son  of  man,  acting  as  the  Judge  of  human 
character  and  persons,  having  assembled  all  the  nations  of 
mankind  before  him,  will  divide  them  into  two  great 
classes  according  as  they  have  used  aright,  or  have  not 
used  aright,  the  talents  intrusted  to  them.  "And  he," 
the  Son  of  man,  acting  as  an  eastern  shepherd,  "  shall 
set  the  sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left." 
Here  Christ  applies  the  terms  of  sheep  and  goats  to  the 
two  great  divisions  of  mankind  that  shall  be  manifested 
in  the  judgment.  Having  effected  this  separation  ac- 
cording lo  his  discernment  of  character,  "  then  shall  the 
King  say  unto  them  on  his  right  hand.  Come  ye  blessed 
of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world." — "  Then  shall  he  say  unto 
them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  ev- 


104  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

erlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels." — 
"  And  these  shall  go  aAvay  into  everlasting  punishment : 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  I  confess,  that  I  know 
not  how  the  Lord  Jesus  could  have  taught  more  explicitly 
the  doctrine,  that  there  5>hall  be  a  final  judgment  of  all 
nations  by  himself;  that  in  that  coming  judgment  he  will 
divide  some  portion  of  mankind  from  tlie  rest ;  and  that 
while  some  are  received  to  crcrlasting  life,  others  shall  be 
doomed  to  everlasting  punishment^  which  is  symbolized  by 
everlasting  fire.  This  fire  is  said  to  have  been  originally 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels;  and  of  course  it 
means  such  an  everlasting  punishment  as  will  be  inflict- 
ed on  spiritual  beings.  In  the  Greek,  one  word,  aimuov,  is 
used  to  denote  the  duration  of  the  fire,  the  punishment, 
and  the  life.  If  the  life  is  to  be  without  termination  in 
futurity,  so  is  the  fire,  so  is  x\\e  punishment.  The  word, 
you  know,  is  compounded  of  two  roots,  which  signify  al- 
uays  being,  or  ever  continuing.  If  the  life  of  the  sheep  is 
eternal  in  the  heavens,  then  the  punishment  of  the  goats 
is  eternal  in  eternal  fire  ;  for  the  same  duration  is  divinely 
predicated  of  each. 

To  show  that  aiuiviov,  rendered  everlasting  and  eternal, 
primarily  and  naturally  signifies  duration  without  end,  I 
refer  to  Matt.  xix.  29,  in  which  place  Christ  promises 
i^uii]v  niooviov,  everlasting  life,  to  all  who  in  this  world  for  his 
sake  shall  leave  houses,  brothers,  sisters,  fathers,  mothers, 
children  and  lands.  This  is  to  be  their  portion  "  in  the 
regeneration"  of  the  world  of  mankind,  by  which  they 
are  to  be  raised  from  their  graves,  "  when  the  Son  of 
man  shall  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory,"  v.  28.  "  Ve- 
rily I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  who  have  followed  me,  in  the 
renovation,  when  y>e  Son  of  man  shall  sit  upon  the  throne 
■of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judg- 
ing the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  Ye,  who  shall  reveal 
my  will  to  man,  shall,  by  your  word  thus  revealed,  judge 
all  the  visible  people  of  God  to  whom  vour  word  shall  be 
sent;  and  then,  cver7/  one  who  so  believes  this  gospel  as 
to  suffer  the  loss  of  all  worldly  friends  and  possessions 
ibr  my  sake,  shall  have  everlasting  life ;  though  not  all 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  lOij 

shall  have  equal  honour  with  the  apostles,  for  whom 
thrones  of  judgment  are  prepared.  In  Luke  xviii.  oO,  we 
read  that  no  one  hath  forsaken  liou^e,  &:c,  "  who  shall  not 
receive  manifold  more  in  this  present  time,"  vj  rw  Ka^pix) 
Tov-w,  meaning  in  the  time  of  his  continuance  on  earth  ; 
"  and  in  the  Avorld  to  come  life  everlasting;"  rw  aiu.i'i  rw 
tp-)(o\ktvix>  ^u)r)v  aiu)viov ',  ill  tkc  cndlrss  duration  to  come,  cnd- 
Ic^s  or  always  being  life.  "  We  have  a  building  of  God, 
a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  (awvioi')  in  the 
heavens,"  2  Cor.  v.  1.  The  same  Avord  is  used,  when  Timo- 
thy is  exhorted  to  "  lay  hold  on  eternal  life,"  (1  Tim.  vi. 
12,)  and  when  God  promises  that  eternal  life  (Rom.  ii.  7.) 
which  you  say  all  men  shall  possess.  It  is  this  very  word 
which  is  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  when  he  is  said  to  be 
"  the  true  God,  and  the  Life  eternal,"  1  John  v.  20. 
"  And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  (a^wviov)  life 
believed,"  Acts  xiii.  48.  The  same  word  is  used  to  de- 
note "  the  eternal  Spirit,"  Heb.  ix.  12,  14,  and  "  the 
eternal  redemption,"  which  Christ  shed  his  blood  to  pro- 
cure ;  and  this  is  "the  eternal  life"  which  he  has  promis- 
ed us,  1  John  ii.  25. 

The  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  well  known,  is 
the  same  language  in  which  the  Septuagint  Translation 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  written,  Avhich  was  often  read 
in  the  Synagogues  and  quoted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles; 
and  in  the  Septuagint  the  eternity  of  God  is  expressed  in 
the  very  words  which  teach  the  endless  punishment  ot 
the  wicked.  In  the  xcth  Psalm,  v.  2,  for  instance,  it  is  said 
of  Jehovah,  "from  everlasting,"  avo  rov  aluvos,  from  the 
ahvai/s  heins;^  j^^j  ^ou  aiwio?  trv  d,  to  the  always  being  thou 
art,  that  is  from  eternity  to  eternity,  thou  art.  In  short, 
I  repeat  it,  that  if  any  word  in  the  Greek  Septuagint  or 
New  Testament  expresses,  unequivocally,  interminable 
duration,  that  Avord  is  frequently  applied  to  teach  the  ev- 
erlasting punishment  of  some  sinners.  I  could  cite  a 
hundred  passages  in  Avhich  this  truth  is  confirmed,  but  it 
would  render  this  discussion  tedious.  If  the  righteous 
when  they  die  are  to  be  receiA^ed  into  "  everlasting  habi- 
tations" of  blessedness,  (Luke  xvi.  9,)  then  it  is  equally 


106  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

certain  that  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  revealed  from 
heaven,  in  flaming  fire  taking  vengeance  on  them  that 
know  not  God,  the  wicked  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment.  They  are  not  to  continue  on  earth,  and 
experience,  as  some  feign,  aiojvwv,  punishment  in  this  w^orld, 
but  they  are  to  go  away  from  the  throne  of  the  Saviour's 
glory  into  everlasting  punishment. 

This  same  punishment  is  spoken  of  by  Jesus  Christ  in 
Matt,  xviii.  S,  and  is  compared  to  one's  being  cast  into 
TO  TTvp  TO  aMviov,  "  thc  firc  that  is  everlasting."  In  verse 
9th,  of  the  same  chapter,  the  place  and  nature  of  this 
punishment  are  compared  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and 
the  fires  there.  "And  if  thine  eye  offend  thee,"  or  rather 
cause  thee  to  offend,  or  to  become  a  scandal,  "  pluck  it 
out,  and  cast  it  from  thee  :  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into- 
life  having  one  eye,  rather  than  having  two, eyes  to  be- 
east  into  the  hell  of  fire,"  tn  T)^  ytf ivav  row  Trupo?,  into  the 
gehenna  of  fire.  This  is  one  of  the  most  forcible  de- 
scriptions of  the  state  of  future  punishment  found  in  the 
Bible ;  and  yEiwa  is  pre-eminently  our  Saviour's  word  for 
hrU,  a  state  and  place  of  future  punishment,  in  which  the 
sufferinsrs  of  the  damned  are  symbolized  by  the  burnings 
of  unquenchable  fire  and  the  gnawings  of  a  never  dying 
worm.  Some  of  the  original  words  in  Hebrew  and  G-reek 
translated  hell  do  not  always  mean  either  a  state  or  place 
of  punishment,  we  allow,  but  the  state  of  departed  spirits  ; 
the  invisible  future  world;  in  Avhich  them  is  a. paradise, 
and  a  gehenna ;  a  place  of  holy  happiness^  and  a  tarta- 
rus  of  moral  pollution  and  misery. 

I  propose  to  pursue  this  subject  in  my  next  letter,  which 
I  may  publish  in  The  Philadelphian  of  the  next  week, 
without  waiting  for  your  reply  to  this.  Your  letters  to 
me,  however,  shall  be  inserted  as  soon  as  possible  after 
they  come  to  hand.  In  this  way  I  will  hope  to  have  our 
letters  shorter,  by  reason  of  the  increase  of  their  number- 
Earnestly  wishing  to  convince  you  that  Universalisroi 
makes  no  man  the  better  for  believing  it,  reforms  no  im- 
moral persons,  and  has  a  tendency  to  drown  men  in  per- 
dition, I  remain  your  friend, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  107 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  May  9,  1834. 
Df ar  Sir — I  perceive  with  pleasure  that  you  have  prac- 
tically renounced  a  sentiment  contained  in  your  letter  of 
March  7  ;  viz.  that  "  commentary  and  criticism  are  need- 
ful to  those  alone  who  wish  to  believe  a  different  doctrine 
from  that  tau^rht  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  inspiration."  And 
I  am  not  witliout  hope  that  some  of  the  passages  by  you 
cited,  to  my  remarks  on  which  you  have  made  no  reply, 
have  also  been  rejected  as  furnishing  no  proof  of  endless 
punishment. 

You  have  distinctly  conceded,  that  from  the  4th  to  the 
35th  verse,  inclusive,  of  Matt,  xxiv,  our  Saviour  mentions 
the  signs  that  should  precede,  and  the  circumstances  that 
should  attend  his  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem  and  put  an 
end  to  the  Jewish  polity.  Your  only  argument  in  proof 
of  the  ]x>sition  that  a  transition  of  reference  commences 

;  at  the  36th  verse,  is  drawn  from  the  expression,  "  But  of 
that  dai/,^^  meaning,  in  your  judgment,  a  different  day  from 

;  the  one  previously  spoken  of.     This  argument,  however, 
is    predicated    of  your  opinion.     As  you   have  hitherto 

I  wholly  neglected  my  reasoning  on  this  point,  I  will  pa- 

i  tiently  direct  your  attention  thereto  in  detail. 

Keeping  in  view  your  concession  that  to  the  35th  verse 
inclusive  the  day  of  tribulation  to  Jerusalem  is  referred 
to,  let  it  be  noticed  that  Jesus  immediately  added,  "  But 
of  that  day  and  hour  knoAveth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 
of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only."  Is  it  more  reasonable 
to  infer  that  a  different  day  from  the  one  of  which  the 
Saviour  had  just  spoken  is  here  intended,  than  that  the 
same  day  of  calamity,  of  which  so  particular  an  account 
had  been  given,  is  referred  to?  This  question  is  directed 
to  the  common  sense  that  would  sit  in  judgment  on  the 
reference  of  similar  language  found  in  any  other  book. 
Jesus  had  expressly  certified  his  disciples,  that  all  the 
things  of  which  he  had  spoken  should  transpire  ere  the 
close  of  the  generation  then  existing— but  ns  to  the  pre- 


108  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

cise  day  and  hour  he  acknowledged  his  inability  to  inform 
them. 

You  seem  to  think  that  in  Matt.  xxiv.  3,  the  disciples 
asked  our  Saviour  several  separate  and  distinct  questions 
— so  separate,  indeed,  that  one,  in  your  judgment,  refer- 
red to  events  which  were  to  transpire  within  forty  years, 
viz.  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  another  to  be  dis- 
tant in  its  reference  as  many  thousand  centuries,  viz.  the 
end  of  the  material  world.  Let  us  attend  to  the  following 
considerations. 

1st.  In  Mark  xiii.  4,  the  questions  before  adverted  to 
are  thus  recorded  :  "  Tell  us,  when  shall  these  things  be  ? 
and  what  shall  be  the  sign  when  all  these  things  shall  be 
fulfilled?"  In  Luke  xxi.  7,  "When  shall  these  things 
be  ?  and  what  sign  will  there  be  when  these  things  shall 
come  to  pass  ?"  In  these  citations  nothing  is  said  of  "  thfe 
end  of  the  world,"  cwTiXaa  tov  aiu)vos,  yet  you  will  not 
deny  that  the  record  of  the  questions  in  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke,  substantially  expresses  the  same  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  disciples.  Surely,  if  you  are  correct  in  your 
interpretation  of  the  phrase  in  question,  Mark  and  Luke 
would  have  recorded  something  in  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject. 

2d.  There  are  but  tivo  questions  in  Matt.  xxiv.  4.  The 
disciples  are  not  represented  as  inquiring  for  the  sign  of 
the  end  of  the  world,  as  a  distinct  matter.  "  When  shall 
these  things  be?"  that  is,  when  shall  the  temple  be  so 
destroyed  that  one  stone  shall  not  be  left  upon  another  ? 
This  is  the  first  question.  "  And  what  shall  be  the  sign  of 
thy  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  world?"  thus  inquiring 
for  the  sign  of  simultaneous  events.  This  is  the  second  ques- 
tion. To  the  28th  verse  inclusive,  Jesus  speaks  in  reply 
to  the  first  question,  with  a  bearing  on  the  second.  At 
the  29th  verse  it  is  written,  "  immediately  after  the  tri- 
bulation of  those  days  shall  the  sun  be  darkened 

and  then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  hea- 
ven. .  .  .  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  coming 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  Tin's  sign  was  the  sign  of  his 
"  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the   world,"  for  the  face  of 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  109 

the  question  shows  that  these  were  to  be  simultaneous 
events. 

3.  Without  any  intimation  that  he  was  about  to  speak 
of  anotlier  coming,  Jesus  proceeds  with  liis  discourse. 
He  mentions  his  coming  in  verses  37,  39,  42,  and  44,  of 
chapter  xxiv,  and  in  verses  33  and  31  of  chapter  xxv, 
which  is  a  continuation  of  the  discourse  commenced 
Matt.  xxiv.  4.  Your  exposition  of  the  instructions  in 
question  must  therefore  be  considered  out  of  place,  until 
you  prove  that  two  different  comings  are  spoken  of  in  the 
cited  chapters.  You  will  not  pretend  that  more  than 
one  coming  is  mentioned  in  the  question,  "  What  shall 
be  the  sign  of  thy  coming  ?"  and  you  are  aware  that  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  is  distinctlv  stated  in  the  part 
of  Matt,  xxiv,  which  you  apply  to  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem. 

4th.  In  my  last  letter  I  stated,  what  you  will  not  deny, 
that  Matt.  xxiv.  36—41,  and  Luke  xvii.  26— 37,  are  paral- 
lel passages— that  they  have  reference  to  the  same  period 
and  the  same  events— that  the  latter  refers  unquestiona- 
bly to  the  circumstances  attending  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  that  such  of  course  must  be  the  reference  of 
the  former.  These  statements  and  arguments  you  have 
allowed  to  pass  unnoticed— and  thus  they  have  shared  the 
fate  of  much  that  I  have  written.  I  must  therefore  bring 
this  matter  more  fully  into  view— although  by  so  doing  I 
incur  the  risk  of  being  charged  with  prolixity. 

In  Matt.  xxiv.  36 — il,  we  read  as  follows— the  same 
being  by  you  applied  to  a  yet  future  judgment:  "  But  of 
that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man  ;  no,  not  the  angels 
of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only.  But  as  the  days  of  Noe 
were,  so  shall  also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  be.  .  .  . 
Then  shall  two  be  in  the  field ;  the  one  shall  be  taken  and 
the  other  left.  Two  women  shall  be  grinding  at  the  mill  ; 
the  one  shall  be  taken  and  the  other  left."  [Where  shall 
they  be  left  ?] 

In  Luke  xvii.  26— 36,  it  is  thus  written:  "And  as  it 
was  in  the  days  of  Noe,  so  shall  it  be  also  in  the  days  of 
the  Son  of  man.  ...  Even  thus  shall  it  be  in  the  day 
10 


110  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

when  the  Son  of  man  is  revealed.  In  that  day  [^^j^^^  day  ?J 
he  which  shall  be  upon  the  house  top  and  his  stuff  in  the 
house,  let  him  not  come  down  to  take  it  away  ;  and  he 
that  is  in  the  field  let  him  likewise  not  return  back.  .  .  . 
Two  women  shall  be  grinding  together  ;  the  one  shall 
be  taken  and  the  other  left.  Two  men  shall  be  in  the 
field  ;  the  one  shall  be  taken  and  the  other  left.  And 
they  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Where,  Lord?  And 
he  said  unto  them.  Wheresoever  the  body  is,  thither  will 
the  eagles  be  gathered  together." 

You  will  at  once  perceive  that  the  cited  passages  are 
perfectly  parallel.  They  refer  to  the  same  period  of  time 
and  to  the  same  events.  And  you  will  not  allege  that 
the  quotation  from  Luke  refers  to  something  yet  future. 
The  directions  concerning  those  who  might  be  on  the 
house-top  or  in  the  field,  are  found,  nearly  verbatim,  in 
Matt.  xxiv.  17,  18,  which  verses,  together  with  the  con- 
nexion in  which  they  stand,  refer  alone  to  the  period  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  according  to  your  own  ac- 
knowledgment. So  also  of  the  language  concerning  the 
eagles.  See  Matt.  xxiv.  28.  With  what  appearance  of 
propriety,  then,  can  you  apply  two  confessedly  parallel 
passages,  the  one  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
the  other  to  a  period  of  time  yet  future  ? 

5th.  The  Saviour,  having  declared  that  all  the  things  of 
which  he  had  spoken  in  the  previous  part  of  Matt,  xxiv, 
should  come  to  pass  before  the  close  of  the  generation  in 
which  he  lived,  proceeded  to  certify  his  disciples  that  of 
the  precise  day  and  hour  he  himself  was  ignorant — but 
of  this  they  might  be  certain,  it  would  be  unexpected  and 
sudden  as  Avas  the  coming  of  the  deluge.  Then  properly 
followed  an  exhortation  to  watchfulness  and  faithfulness, 
with  a  statement  of  the  consequences  that  would  attend 
a  contrary  course  of  conduct.  This  closes  chapter  xxiv, 
though  the  discourse  is  continued,  being  broken  only 
by  the  modern  divisions  of  the  Bible  into  chapters  and 
verses. 

Chapter  xxy  commences  with  the  adverb  "  7%en,'* 
which  calls  for  the  question,   When  ?    And  the  answer 


THEOLOGICAL    DI5CUSST0X.  HI 

must  bo  souijlit  in  the  previous  declarations  concerning 
the  coining  of  the  Son  of  man.  Tlie  parable  of  the  vir- 
g'ms  closes  with  another  exhortation  to  watchfulness. 
The  parable  of  the  talents  was  designed  to  encourage 
iidolily.  And  these  two  parables  were  obviously  intended 
to  illustrate  what  is  recorded  in  the  closing  part  of  Matt, 
xxiv.  The  parable  of  the  sheep  and  goats,  Ixjing  a  sum- 
mary of  all  the  previous  instructions,  commences  at  verse 
ol.  "  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come."  Tiie  lime  is 
not  stated,  for  that  had  previously  been  plainly  and  une- 
quivocally confined  to  the  then  existing  generation,  though 
of  the  precise  day  and  hour  even  Jesus  himself  could  n'ot 
inform  the  disciples. 

Your  only  remarks  which  bear  in  the  least  against  the 
foregoing  view  of  the  subject,  are  four  in  number. 

1st.  You  say  that  Christ  did  not  come  vi  his  glory, 
either  in  his  incarnation,  as  the  babe  of  Bethlehem,  or  as 
the  man  of  sorrows— and  hence  you  argue  that  the  com- 
ing mentioned  in  Matt.  xxv.  31,  must  be  yet  future,  inas- 
much as  the  coming  there  mentioned  is  a  coming  m  glory. 
Have  you  forgotten  your  own  acknowledgment  that  Matt! 
xxiv.  30,  referred  to  the  coming  of  Christ  to  destroy  Jeru- 
salem ?  and  have  you  overlooked  the  fact,  that  the  com- 
ing there  mentioned  was  to  be  "with  power  and  great 
glon/ .?" 

2d.  You  say,  in  effect,  that  the  angels  did  not  accom- 
pany our  Lord  to  destroy  Jerusalem.  In  Matt.  xxiv.  30, 
31,  which,  I  again  repeat,  you  applv  to  the  coming  above 
mcniioiicd  and  to  no  other,  it  is  Avritten,  "  they  shall  see 
the  Son  of  man  comins:  in  the  clouds  of  heaven   with 

power  and  £rreat  glory.  And  he  shall  send  ^/.s^/z^'-f/^ 

and  thev  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds," 
etc.  The  elect  who  were  thus  to  be  gailiered,  are  men- 
tioned in  Matt,  xxv,  under  the  figure  of  the  sheep. 

3d.  You  say  that  at  no  time  has  the  Saviour  "  gathered 
all  nations  before  him."  Once  more  I  shall  quote  testi- 
mony which  refers,  according  to  your  own  concession,  to 
events  connected  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  "  And 
then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  heaven  • 


112  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

and  then  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  mourn And 

he  shall  send  his  angels.  .  .  .  and  they  shall  gather  his 
elect  from  the  four  winds,  [or  as  in  Mark  xiii.  27,  '  from 
the  uttermost  pari  of  the  earth,^]  from  one  end  of  heaven  to 
the  other,"  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  31.  If  you  can  determine  in 
Avhat  sense  this  language  was  used,  and  in  Avhat  sense  it 
was  fulfilled  more  than  seventeen  centuries  ago,  you  will 
be  at  no  loss  to  determine  how  all  nations  were  gathered 
before  the  Son  of  man  when  he  came  to  destroy  Jeru- 
salem. 

4th.  You  depend  somewhat  on  the  future  tense  of  the 
verb,  in  the  declaration,  "  Before  him  shall  be  gathered  all 
nations."  I  have  repeatedly  certified  you,  that  a  passage 
which  was  future  in  its  reference  when  spoken  or  written, 
is  not  necessarily  future  now.  But  of  this  fact  you  take 
not  the  slightest  notice.  In  Matt.  xxiv.  31,  it  is  written, 
"  he  shall  send  his  angels,"  but  notwithstanding  the  future 
tense  of  the  verb,  you  apply  the  passage  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem. 

It  is  not  necessary  at  present,  nor  am  I  required,  to  en- 
ter into  a  detailed  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  sheep 
and  goats.  It  is  sufficient  that  I  have  shown  the  refer- 
ence thereof  to  events  which  long  since  transpired. 

I  am  desirous  that  we  should  enter  into  a  full  examina- 
tion of  the  period  denoted  by  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man,  as  mentioned  in  the  passages  before  us.  You  are 
sensible  that  much  depends  on  the  decision  of  this  mat- 
ter—inasmuch as  the  events  in  review  were  to  transpire 
when  the  Son  of  man  should  come  in  his  glory.  If  you 
feel  yourself  competent  to  sustain  the  positions  you  have 
assumed,  you  will  accede  to  this  proposal. 

And  while  on  this  point,  allow  me  to  observe,  that  for 
either  of  us  to  cite  a  Scripture  passage,  offer  a  word  of 
comment  thereon,  and  then  proceed  to  cite  other  testi- 
mony, without  even  noticing  the  views  and  arguments 
presented  by  the  other  on  the  passages  previously  adduced, 
IS  not,  in  my  judgment,  either  a  candid,  equitable,  or 
profitable  mode  of  procedure.  In  reviewing  your  criti- 
cism on  the  Greek  noun  atwv  {aion)  and  its  derivative  ad- 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  113 

jeclive,  I  wish  our  readers  distinctly  to  remember  two 
particulars.  1st.  Your  argument  rests  on  the  supposi 
lion  that  aio)v  signifies  eternity,  or  endless  duration  of  be- 
ing. If  you  yield  this  supposition,  your  entire  argument 
is  lost.  You  say,  "if  there  is  any  word  in  the  Greek 
language  which  denotes  endless  continuance,  it  is  this," 
Mu)v.  2d.  No  adjective  can  express  any  more  than  is 
expressed  by  the  noun  to  which  it  is  relative.  The  ad- 
jective gloomy  cannot  express  more  than  is  expressed  by 
gloom — lovcli/  than  love — proud  than  pride.  A  thousand 
similar  illustrations  might  be  adduced.  From  hence  it 
will  follow,  that  if  the  noun  aimv  does  not  strictly  signify 
eternity,  the  adjective  cannot,  in  itself,  express  an  end- 
less duration. 

The  following  considerations  justify  me  in  assuming 
that  the  noun  aMv  does  not,  and  cannot  signify  eternity, 
or  an  endless  duration. 

1st.  We  read  of  the  beginning  of  at(j)v — but  eternity  can 
have  no  beginning — therefore  atav  does  not  signify  eter- 
nity. John  ix.  32,  "  Since  the  world  began,"  «  rov  aiavof. 
In  Rom.  xvi.  25,  Paul  speaks  of  the  mystery  of  the  gos- 
pel "  which  was  kept  secret  since  the  world  atdvion  be- 
gan." 

2.  The  noun  in  question  is  used  in  the  plural  number, 
and  there  are  several  forms  of  expression  which  denote 
the  existence  of  more  than  one  aiu)v — but  eternitv  is  an 
individual;  there  cannot  be  two  eternities — therefore 
aiu)v  cannot  signify  eternity.  1  Cor.  ii.  7,  "The  hidden 
wisdom  which  God  ordained  before  the  worlds  rpw  rwv 
atwiwv  began."  Eph.  iii.  9,  "  The  mystery  which  from 
the  beginning  of  the  worlds  airu)  to)v  aiujvi^jv  hath  been  hid  in 
God."  Col.  i.  26,  "  The  mystery  which  hath  been  hid 
from  ages  and  from  generations,"  airw  rwr  atiLvwv  Kai  arw  twv 
ytvtov.  We  read  also  of  the  cares,  the  wisdom,  the  men, 
the  things  of  this  aiuv  (aion,)  implying  another;  and  of 
the  alo)ves{aums)  to  come,  implying  more  than  one  future 
aluv  (aion.)    But  two  or  more  eternities  is  a  contradiction. 

3d.  We  read  of  the  end  ofn/uv  {aion) — but  eternity  can 
hare  no  end — therefore  aiwv  (aion)  cannot  signify  eternity. 
10^ 


114  THEOLOGICAL    DI3CUSSI0.N . 

In  Matt.  xxiv.  3 ;  xiii.  39,  40,  and  other  passages,  in  which 
the  phrase  "  end  of  the  world"  occurs,  the  word  for  world 
is  not /caitr/ioj,  but  a/ov.  The  Very  phrase  ffvv^^^fIa  rovaiavos, 
end  of  the  world,  on  which  yon  so  confidently  rely  for 
proof  of  your  positions,  pointedly  contradicts  your  views. 
You  must  either  allow  that  a/wv  does  not  signify  eternity 
— in  which  case  your  entire  argument  would  be  lost — or 
attempt  to  define  what  you  mean  by  the  end  of  eternihj. 

4th.  We  read  of  the  end  and  the  ends  of  theafwvfs 
(aions,)  plural.  1  Cor.  x.  11,  "And  they  are  written  for 
our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  worlds  twv 
alQivojv  ARE  comc."  Heb.  ix.  26,  "  But  now  once  in  the 
end  of  the  worlds  avvriXtia  rwv  aiwvwv,  hath  he  appeared  to 
put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  In  your  com- 
ments on  the  latter  passage,  you  say,  that  "  Christ  came 
in  ihe  joint  ending  of  the  ages  of  past  and  future  eternity." 
But  a  past  eternity  is  a  contradiction.  You  also  say,  "  an 
interminable  past  duration  preceded  his  appearing,  and 
an  interminable  duration  is  to  succeed."  But  an  inter- 
minable duration  is  a  duration  without  termination — yet 
according  to  your  statement,  there  was  a  termination  to 
the  interminable  duration  that  preceded  the  coming  of 
Christ !  The  phrase  "end  of  the  worlds,"  you  interpret 
to  mean  the  ending  together  of  iwo  eternities— but  be- 
sides the  total  absence  of  authority  for  such  interpreta- 
tion, allow  me  to  suggest,  that,  according  to  your  views, 
Christ  offered  himself  on  the  cross  between  the  ending  of 
one  eternity,  and  the  beginning o{  another! 

From  the  foregoing  considerations  the  conclusion  is 
obvious,  that,  of  whatever  words  the  noun  okdv  may  be 
formed,  it  does  not  signify  eternity ;  and  consequently 
its  derivative  adjective  cannot,  in  itself,  signify  an  endless 
duration. 

In  perfect  agreement  with  these  facts,  we  find,  that  the 
word  everlasting  is  applied,  in  the  Septuagint,  to  the 
priesthood  of  Aaron,  which  was  abolished  to  make  room 
for  the  priesthood  of  Christ ;  to  the  everlasting  covenant 
of  the  law,  which  was  superseded  by  the  gospel  covenant; 
to  the  everlasting  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  which 


THEOLOC.IUAI,    DISCUSSION.  115 

the  Jews  do  not  now  possess — and  to  other  everlasting 
things,  which  not  only  had  no  reference  to  a  future  existence^ 
but  were  temporary  in  their  characters,  and  limited  in  their 
duration.  Allow  nie  to  say,  that  a  Jew  uses  the  very 
same  argument  to  [)ruve  that  Christ  was  an  impostor  and 
the  gospel  a  fabrication,  that  you  have  adopted  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  Were  I  to  allow  the 
validity  of  your  argument  and  conclusion,  I  should  be 
compelled  to  admit  the  same  in  relation  to  the  reasoning 
of  the  Jew. 

Besides — you  have  yet  to  prove  that  Matt.  xxv.  46,  has 
any  reference  to  the  immortal  state  of  existence.  I  am 
aware  that  (a);,v  aiwviov  is  placed  in  contrast  with  K^Xairiv 
aidviov — but  I  deny  that  either  o(  these  phrases  belongs  to 
the  incorruptible  life.  The  faithful  and  obedient  have 
everlasting  life,  in  the  present  world,  as  I  have  abundantly 
shown  in  previous  letters.  To  my  arguments  on  this 
point  you  have  failed  to  reply. 

The  duration  signified  by  the  adjective  aldviov  must 
always  be  determined  by  the  subject  or  thing  to  which  it 
is  applied.  Adjectives  are  but  relative  terms.  The  ad- 
jectives tall,  great,  long,  deep,  &;c,  have  no  meaning  in 
themselves.  We  say  a  long  arm,  a  long  pole,  a  long  day 
— a  tall  man,  a  tall  tree,  a  tall  steeple — and  so  of  other 
adjectives.  They  are  indefinite  in  themselves,  and  must 
always  be  considered  in  connexion  with  the  things  to 
which  they  are  applied. 

I  grant  that  the  word  everlasting  is  applied  to  the  Al- 
mighty, and  in  this  case  it  signifies  an  endless  duration, 
for  (jod  is  "  without  beginning  of  days  or  ending  of  years." 
But  it  is  not  the  application  of  the  word  everlasting  to  the 
name  of  the  Sui)reme  Being,  that  proves  to  us  the  infinite 
duration  of  his  existence.  He  is  "  the  incorruptible  God," 
i<p9(ipTf>v    Oeov,  Rom.  i.  23. 

I  freely  allow  also,  that  in  2  Cor.  v.  1,  the  word  aluviov 
expresses  an  unlimited  duration,  not  however  in  itselt 
considered,  but  because  of  the  subject  to  which  it  is  appli- 
ed. "  We  have  a  building  of  God,  a  house  not  made 
with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens."    But  the  terms  used 


ll-e  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

in  1  Peter  i.  4,  are  much  strons^er  than  the  adjective  alwvtw. 
"  An  inheritance  incorruptible,  i[,pOdprov  undefiled,  and  that 
fadeth  not  away,"  aixaoairov. 

Jesus  was  made  a  high  priest  for  ever  jtf  rov  aio)va  after 
the  order  of  Melcliizedeck,  Heb.  vi.  20.  But  in  Heb.  vii. 
16,  there  is  a  much  stronger  term  than  the  one  in  ques- 
tion :  "  Who  is  made  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life," 

f(i>i7ff  aKaTa\vTO%). 

You  say,  "  if  any  word  in  the  Greek  Septuagint  or  New 
Testament  expresses,  unequivocally,  interminable  dura 
tion,  that  word  is  frequently  applied  to  the  everlasting 
punishment  of  some  sinners."  I  have  shown  that  aiZvov 
is  not  unequivocal  in  its  signification;  and  I  will  add,  that 
your  argument  in  proof  of  endless  punishment  will  be 
essentially  improved,  if  you  can  find  the  words  a<p9apT0i, 
aixapavTos,  aKaraXvros^  or  either  of  them,  applied  to  punish- 
ment in  the  Bible.  I  wish  you  either  to  present  an  in- 
stance of  this  character,  or  acknowledge  that  such  an  in- 
stance cannot  be  produced. 

To  show  that  aioomov  signifies  endless  duration,  you  re- 
fer to  Matt.  xix.  29,  and  Luke  xviii.  30.  In  the  former 
passage,  Jesus  promised  everlasting  life  to  those  Avho 
should  forsake  houses  or  lands  for  his  sake.  The  defect 
in  your  argument  arises  from  taking  for  granted,  that  "  in 
the  regeneration,"  referred  to  the  future  state.  In  the 
latter  passage,  Jesus  promised  that  those  who  faithful- 
ly followed  him  should  "  receive  manifold  more  in  this 
present  lime,  and  in  the  world  to  come  life  everlasting." 
Your  interpretation  supposes  "  this  present  time"  to  sig- 
nify this  earthly  pilgrimage,  and  "  the  world  to  come," 
the  incorruptible  existence  beyond  the  grave.  But  the 
phrases  in  question  have  no  such  reference.  The  Jews 
prominently  spake  of  the  age,  or  world,  under  the  Imv, 
and  the  age  under  the  Christ.  Olam  ha  bo,  the  world  to 
come,  is  a  constant  phrase  among  the  Jewish  Avriters  for 
the  times  of  the  Messiah.  We  should  not  overlook  the  fact 
that  Jesus  uttered  the  language  in  review  previously  to 
the  close  of  the  age  under  the  law.  At  that  time  the  age 
under  the  Messiah  was  prospective  ;  it  was/o  annc.  "  This 


TIIKOLOr.rCAL    DISCUSSION.  117 

present  time"  signifies  the  former;  "the  world  (or  age) 
to  come"  tlie  latter. 

You  again  incidentally  introduce  2  Thess.  i.  6 — 10; 
and  iVoni  this  circumstance  I  feel  impelled  to  invite  you, 
for  the  third  time,  to  enter  fully  into  an  examination  oi 
that  passage.     There  certainly  can  be  no  propriety  in  re- 

fieatedly  citing  a  text  of  this  description,  while  an  unwil- 
ingness  exists  to  bring  its  claims  and  character  fully  into 
view. 

I  have  a  similar  remark  to  offer  in  reference  to  your 
observations  on  the  word  gehenna.  I  informed  you  in  a 
former  letter,  that  I  was  prepared  to  meet  you  iii  discus- 
sion of  all  that  the  Bible  says  about  this  matter.  I  de- 
sired you  to  furnish  your  reasons  for  supposing  that  ge- 
nenna  is  in  the  immortal  state  of  existence.  But  all  I 
have  said  has  been  wholly  disregarded.  You  proceed  to 
assume  that  gehenna  is  "  a  state  and  place  of  future  pun- 
ishment," kc,  without  offering  a  word  of  proof.  You  say 
that  the  gehennn  of  fire  "  is  one  of  the  most  forcible  de- 
scriptions of  the  state  of  future  punishment  found  in  the 
Bible" — yet  you  do  not  condescend  to  furnish  any  evi- 
dence that  these  statements  are  true. 

You  indeed  certify  me,  that  you  will  pursue  the  sub- 
ject in  your  next  letter,  which  may  be  published  in  The 
Philadelphian,  without  waiting  for  my  reply — but  I  must 
be  allowed  to  enter  my  protest  against  such  procedure. 
It  seems  to  intimate  that  you  do  not  intend  to  notice  what 
I  have  already  written;  and  that  your  only  duty,  so  far 
as  thi^  controversy  is  concerned,  is  to  make  your  state- 
ments and  draw  your  conclusions,  without  the  slightest 
reference  to  the  views  and  arguments  by  me  presented.  I 
respectfully  request  that  some  attention  should  be  given 
to  the:^  remarks. 

Another  thing  I  desire  to  mention.  Entire  justice  can- 
not be  done  to  several  important  subjects  in  any  one 
letter.  I  propose,  therefore,  that  you  select  any  topic  you 
please — either  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  word  a'lwv,  (aion,) 
gehenna,  or  any  other — and  let  that  be  the  subject  of  discus- 
sion until  we  have  fully  examined  it ,  then  pass  to  ano- 


.18  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

ther.  In  this  way  the  minds  of  our  readers  would  not 
become  confused  by  a  multiplicity  of  subjects  ;  and  some 
hope  might  be  entertained  that  advantages  of  moment 
would  be  consequent  of  our  labours.  Nevertheless,  be  it 
as  you  judge  expedient. 

Earnestly  desiring  to  convince  you  and  all  our  readers 
who  are  not  already  convinced,  that  the  doctrine  of  end- 
less punishment  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  that  "  the 
living  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  those 
who  believe,"  I  am  respectfullv  yours,  &:c. 

'  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  May  9th,  1834. 
Dear  Sir — The  divinely  inspired  Paul  informed  the 
Athenians,  that  God  who  made  the  world,  and  all  things 
therein,  "  now  commandeth  all  men  every  where  to  re- 
pent ;  because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness ;  by  that  man  whom  he 
haih  ordained;  whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  to  all 
men,  in  tliat  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,"  Acts  xix. 
30,  31.  Paul  did  not  affirm  that  God  had  judged  the 
world,  but  that  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will 
do  it.  You  cannot  say  that  the  day  of  judgment  thus  ap- 
pointed to  take  place  at  some  time  after  Paul's  speech  in 
the  midst  of  Mars-hill,  was  the  time  of  Christ's  coming 
in  judgment  on  Jerusalem;  for  Paul  was  speaking  to 
Greeks  Avho  had  no  special  interest  in  that  city ;  and  he 
informed  them  that  God  required  all  men  evert/  ichere  to 
repent,  because  God  had  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will 
judge  all  mankind,  whetlier  Jews  or  Gentiles.  He 
alleges,  moreover,  that  Christ's  resurrection  from  the 
dead  was  sufficient  proof  of  the  truth  of  his  assertion  con- 
cerning the  future  judgment  of  the  world  ;  thereby  clear- 
ly-implying that  the  world  of  mankind  are  to  be  raised 
from  the  dead  as  Jesus  was,  that  they  may  be  judged.    la 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCDSSION.  I  I'.) 

this  way  the  Athenians  evidently  understood  the  apostle, 
for  "  wlien  they  heard  of  tlie  resurrection  of  the  dead  some 
mucked." 

In  this  judi^ment  the  apostle  John  prophetically  "  saw 
the  dead  small  and  n,reax,  stand  before  God  :  and  the  sea 
gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it ;  and  death  and  hell 
(hai/rs)  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them  :  and 
ilioy  were  judged  every  man  according  to  their  works/' 
Rin\  XX.  13.  All  who  are  under  the  power  of  death  are 
to  be  restored  to  life  ;  and  all  who  are  in  At'//,  hades,  the 
state  of  departed  spirits,  are  to  be  brought  forth  to  judg- 
ment ;  and  after  this  resurrection  there  is  to  be  no  more 
natural  death,  nor  any  one  subsisting  in  a  disembodied 
state  in  the  world  of  spirits.  In  this  sense  death  and  hell 
are  to  be  destroyed  ;  and  therefore  it  is  added  in  figurative 
language,  "  and  death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire."  That  this  hell  hades,  which  is  to  be  destroyed,  does 
not  mean  the  future  state  of  punishment,  I  allow.  It  is 
granted  also,  that  this  word  hades,  rendered  hell,  prima- 
rily denotes  the  state  of  departed  spirits,  whether  they 
are  blessed  or  miserable,  and  not  necessarily  any  place  or 
state  of  punishment,  in  that  state  of  departed  or  disembo- 
died souls;  for  Christ  descended  into  hell  {hades  in  Greek, 
srhcol  in  Hebrew,)  and  God  did  not  leave  his  soul  in  hell, 
that  is,  in  the  state  of  disembodied  spirits,  but  raised  him 
out  of  it,  and  reunited  his  soul  to  his  body,  without  suf- 
fering his  body  to  see  corruption. 

Although,  however,  scheol  and  hades,  rendered  hell,  do 
not  always  imply  the  misery  of  those  who  are  in  the  state 
of  departed  spirits,  yet  frequently  it  is  manifested  that 
there  is  a  gehenna,  a  hell  of  fire,  a  state  of  punishment  in 
hades.  There  is  a  paradise^  and  there  is  a  hell  of  fire  in  the 
state  of  departed  souls  of  men. 

When  it  is  said,  Psalm  ix.  17,  "  the  wicked  shall  be 
turned  into  hell,  and  all  the  nations  that  forget  God,"  the 
word  hell,  scheol,  of  itself  would  not  prove  that  a  state  of 
punishment  is  intended;  for  Jacob  said,  "  I  will  go  down 
into  the  grave,  [scheol,  hell,]  unto  my  son  mourning,"  Gen. 
xxxvii.  35;  but  since  the  wicked  and  the  nations  that  for- 


120  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

^et  God  are  contrasted  with  others,  and  it  is  evidently  the 
intention  of  the  Psahiiist  to  denounce  some  evil  upon 
them,  we  must  think  that  hy  tin-ning  the  tcickcd  into  hell 
he  means  something  more  than  the  dying  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked.  If  punishment  in  schcol,  hell,  or  the 
state  of  the  dead,  is  not  intended,  the  wicked  might 
answer,  "  Well,  what  then  ?  If  ive  are  to  be  turned  into 
hell  so  are  the  righteous,  and  they  and  we  shall  come  to 
the  same  glorious  end.  The  nations  that  forget  God 
shall  fare  as  well  as  those  that  remember  him." 

That  scheoly  hades,  hell,  frequently  denotes  a  state  of 
punishment  in  a  world  of  spirits  is  evident  from  many 
passages  of  Scripture.  In  Deut.  xxxii.  22,  Jehovah  says 
of  the  idolatrous  Israelites,  "  a  fire  is  kindled  in  mine 
anger,  and  shall  burn  unto  the  lowest  hell."  In  the  Sep- 
tuagint  it  reads,  ew?  a6ov  Kara,  to  the  loivcst  hades.  The 
highly  favoured  Israelites,  who,  without  excuse,  "  have 
moved  me  to  jealousy  by  that  which  is  not  God,"  I  will 
punish,  saith  Jehovah,  by  reducing  them  to  the  lowest  state 
of  misery  in  the  world  of  departed  spirits.  In  connexion 
with  this  burning  of  his  wrath  against  them  in  hades,  and 
as  a  prelude  to  it,  he  denounces  those  temporal  judgments 
which  were  to  bring  them  down  to  hell.  "  Mine  anger," 
saith  he,  "  shall  consume  the  earth  with  her  increase, 
and  set  on  fire  the  foundations  of  the  mountains.  I 
Avill  heap  mischiefs  upon  them  :  I  will  spend  mine  arrows 
upon  them.  They  shall  be  burnt  with  hunger,  and  de- 
voured with  burning  heat,  and  with  bitter  destruction. 
To  me  belongeth  vengeance  and  recompense ;  their  foot 
shall  slide  in  due  time.  See  now  that  I,  even  I  am  he, 
and  there  is  no  god  with  me  :  I  kill,  and  I  make  alive  ; 
I  wound,  and  I  heal;  neither  is  there  any  that  can  deliver 
out  of  my  hand  ;  for  I  lift  up  my  hand  to  heaven  and  say, 
I  live  for  ever.  If  I  whet  my  glittering  sword,  and  mine 
hand  take  hold  on  judgment ;  I  will  render  vengeance  to 
mine  enemies,  and  will  reward  ihem  that  hate  me."  Do 
these  tilings  denote  no  worse  evil  than  natural  death, 
which  shall  come  alike  on  the  righteous  and  the  wicked? 
If  temporal  judgments  alone  were  intended,  why  should 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  121 

he  remind  us  that  he  lives  for  ever,  as  if  the  vengeance 
taken  by  him  were  to  be  experienced  for  ever,  in  the  low- 
est hell  ? 

Tlie  dying  thief  upon  the  cross  was  assured  by  Christ 
that  on  the  day  of  his  death  he  should  be  in  paradise  with 
his  Lord.  Christ  died,  and  entered  hades,  the  world  of 
spirits;  and  so  did  the  penitent  thief.  But  while  in  hades 
Christ  was  in  paradise,  and  so  was  the  pardoned  malefac- 
tor. That  paradise  in  hades  means  a  state  of  pure  and 
perfect  happiness,  you  do  not  deny.  That  in  hades  there 
is  a  state  of  suffering  and  punishment  you  deny;  but  in 
2  Peter  ii.  4,  we  read,  that  "  God  spared  not  the  angels 
which  sinned,  but  having  cast  them  down  to  hell  in 
chains  of  darkness,  hath  delivered  them  to  be  reserved 
unto  judgment."  Here  the  expression  rendered  having 
cast  them  down  to  hell,  is  tartar osas,  having  cast  them  down, 
or  turned  them  into  tartarus.  The  term  refers  not  to  the 
grave  or  natural  death  merely,  but  to  a  state  of  punish- 
ment in  the  invisible  world,  which,  in  the  days  of  Peter, 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  called  tartarus.  The  heathens 
doubtless  entertained  erroneous  notions  about  the  locality 
of  this  tartarus,  and  have  written  many  unscriptural 
things  about  it,  but  still  it  was  the  name  of  a  stale  of  pun- 
ishment, a  prison  of  despair  in  the  world  of  spirits ;  and 
the  spirit  of  inspiration  by  using  it  has  clearly  taught, 
that  there  is  a  state  of  punishment  to  which  the  angels 
which  sinned  have  been  confined,  that  may  properly  bear 
that  ancient  and  classic  name.  For  our  present  purpose 
it  is  a  matter  of  no  importance  to  decide  whether  these 
angels  were  spiritual  beings  never  incarnate,  or  the  souls 
of  some  who  once  were  messengers  on  earth :  some  an- 
gels are  in  tartarus  ;  and  there  in  a  state  of  confinement 
are  reserved  to  a  future  judgment.  Parkhurst  says, 
*'  The  ancient  Greeks  appear  to  have  received  by  tradition, 
an  account  of  the  punishment  of  the  fallen  angels,  and  of 
had  men  after  death  ;  and  their  poets  did,  in  conformity,  I 
presume,  with  that  account,  make  tartarus  the  place  where 
the  giants  who  rebelled  against  Jupiter,  and  the  souls 
of  the  wicked,  were  confined.     Here,  saith  Hesiod,  the 

11 


122  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION, 

rebellious  Titans  were  bound  in  penal  chains.  But  as  the 
Greeks  imagined  the  earth  to  be  of  a  boundless  depth,  sa 
it  must  not  be  dissembled  that  their  poets  speak  of  tarta- 
rus  as  a  vast  pit  or  gulf  in  the  bowels  of  it,"  Hesiod 
calls  it 

"Black  tartarus  within  earth's  spacious  womb." 

In  Homer's  Iliad  viii,  Jupiter  threatens  any  one  of  the 
gods  who  should  assist  the  Trojans,  saying,  ''I  Avill  throw 
him  into  darksome  tartarus,"  and  declares  that  he  will 
bind  him  in  chains  under  darkness.  In  another  part  of 
the  same  Iliad,  Pope  translates  the  father  of  the  Greciaa 
poetry  thus  : 

"  No  sun  e'er  gilds  the  gloomy  horrors  there; 
No  cheerful  gales  refresh  the  lazy  air, 
But  murky  tartarus  extends  around." 

Indeed  had  Peter  been  a  learned  man,  independently  of 
inspiration,  we  should  have  thought  he  was  quoting: 
Homer  as  literally  as  Paul  did  some  of  the  Athenians  and- 
Cretans,  (Acts  xvii.  28,  and  Titus  i.  12,)  but  as  he  was 
not,  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Holy  Ghost  in- 
troduced this  tartarosas  into  the  sacred  oracles  on  pur- 
pose to  refute  the  false  doctrine  that  hdl  means  nothing 
but  the  grave  or  the  state  of  the  dead. 

"On  the  whole,  then,"  says  Parkhurst,  ^'raprapow 
in  St.  Peter  is  the  same  as  piTmiv  £?  raprapovy  to  throiv  into 
tartarus,  in  Homer,  only  rectifying  the  poet's  mistake  of 
tartarus  being  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  and  recurring 
to  the  true  original  sense  of  that  word  above  explained, 
which,  when  applied  to  spirits,  must  be  mlerpreted  spiritu- 
ally ;  and  thus  tartarosas  will  import  that  God  cast  the 
apostate  angels  out  of  his  presence  into  that  (d^o?  rod  cKdrovsy 
blackness  of  darkness  (2  Peter  ii.  17;  Jude  ver.  13,)  where 
they  will  be  for  ever  banished  from  the  light  of  his  counte- 
nance.^^ 

This  tartarus,  or  state  of  future  punishment  of  which 
Peter  speaks,   is  called  by  Christ  the  hell,  or  gchenna  of 
fire;  and  both  expressions  refer  to  the  same  thing.  Christ 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSIOTt.  123 

derived  the  name  which  he  employed  to  denote  the  state 
of  future  endless  misery  from  scenes  familiar  to  the 
Jews;  and  Peter  from  the  conceptions  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans.  The  grhmna  or  hdl  of  fire  is  the  very  opposite 
to  the  paradise  of  God,  to  which  the  soul  of  the  repent- 
ant thief  went  with  the  Redeemer  on  the  day  of  the  cru- 
cifixion. 

In  Matt.  V.  29,  30,  Christ  twice  employs  the  word  gc- 
henna,  when  he  warns  men  to  pluck  out  a  right  eye,  and 
cut  off  a  right  hand,  lest  the  "  whole  body  should  be  cast 
into  Af/Z."  Had  he  employed  the  word  hades  it  might 
have  denoted  the  grave,  or  merely  the  world  of  future 
existence  ;  but  to  be  cast  into  gehenna  was  to  be  cast  into 
a  state  of  which  the  valley  of  Hinnom  was  a  fit  emblem. 
It  is  in  this  gehenna  in  the  state  of  the  dead,  in  which 
Christ  says  God  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body, 
Matt.  X.  28.  It  is  the  damnation  or  the  judgment  of  ge- 
henna, hell,  and  not  of  hades,  merely,  which  is  spoken  of 
by  our  Saviour,  when  he  asks  hypocrites,  extortioners, 
persecutors,  murderers,  and  unclean  persons,  "  How  can 
ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell  ?"  Matt,  xxiii.  33.  By 
the  damnation  of  gehenna,  and  by  destroying  soul  and 
body  in  gehenna,  after  men  had  killed  the  body,  our  Sa- 
viour certainly  meant  some  dreadful  evil.  Gehrnna  we 
allow  was  a  compound  word  from  two  Hebrew  words 
which  signify  Vale  of  Hinnom.  So  spirit  literally  signi- 
fies air,  breath,  and  ivind ;  and  heaven  the  shy  or  azure 
vault  over  our  earth.  Man  also  literally  means  red  earth. 
Shall  we  therefore  assert  that  gehenna,  spirit,  heaven, 
and  man,  mean  now  in  common  language  nothing  more 
than  the  natural  objects  whence  the  names  were  derived  ? 

"  This  valley  of  Hinnom,''''  says  Paekiiurst,  '*  lay  near 
Jerusalem,  and  had  been  the  place  of  those  abominable 
sacrifices  in  which  the  idolatrous  Jews  burned  their  chil- 
dren alive  to  Molech,  Baal  or  the  Sun.  A  particular 
place  in  this  valley  was  called  Tophrt,  and  the  valley  it- 
self the  valley  of  Tophet,  from  the  fire-stove,  Hebrew 
T/)pheth,  in  which  they  burned  their  children  to  Molech 
Fwm  this  valley  having  been  the  scene  of  the^e  infer 


i24  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

nal  sacrifices^  and  probably  too  from  its  continuing  after 
the  time  of  King  Josiah's  reformation  a  place  of  abomin- 
able filthiness  and  pollution,  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's 
time  used  the  compound  word  gchinnom  for  hcU,  the  place 
of  the  damned."  This  appears  from  that  word  being 
thus  applied  by  several  Jewish  comments,  called  Targums, 
to  which  he  refers.  The  truth  of  this  representation  may 
be  learned  by  reading  2  Kings  xxiii.  10,  in  which  place  it 
is  said  of  Josiah,  "  he  defileth  Topheth,  which  is  in  the 
valley  of  the  children  of  Hinnom,  that  no  man  might 
make  his  son  or  his  daughter  to  pass  through  the  fire  to 
Molech."  2  Chron.  xxviii.  2,  3,  Ahaz  "  walked  in  the 
ways  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  and  made  also  molten  ima- 
ges for  Baalim.  Moreover,  he  burnt  incense  in  the 
valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  and  burnt  his  children 
in  the  fire,  after  the  abominations  of  the  heathen." 
From  Jeremiah  xix,  we  learn  that  the  prophet  was  sent 
by  the  Lord  to  prophesy  in  this  valley  and  say,  to  those 
Avho  built  "  the  high  places  of  Baal,  to  burn  their  sons 
Avith  fire  for  burnt  offerings  unto  Baal — behold,  the  days 
come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  this  place  shall  no  more  be 
<:alled  Tophet,  nor  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  but 
the  valley  of  slaughter.  And  the  houses  of  Jerusalem, 
-and  the  houses  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  shall  be  defiled  as 
the  place  of  Tophet."  It  is  evident  from  these  passages 
that  gehenna  was  the  name  of  a  place  of  pollution,  pun- 
ishment, and  the  service  of  false  and  cruel  gods.  What 
more  expressive  or  suitable  term  could  have  been  chosen 
to  denote  the  state  of  sin  and  misery,  and  irreligion  be- 
yond the  grave?  The  expression  gehenna  of  fire,  was 
probably  chosen  to  denote  the  punishment  of  hell,  be- 
cause of  the  fires  employed  in  the  service  of  Molech,  and 
the  fires  subsequently  employed  perpetually  in  burning 
the  offals  of  Jerusalem. 

"  The  E.abbins  assure  us,"  says  Calmet,  "  that  this  idol 
{Molech]  was  of  brass,  sitting  upon  a  throne  of  the  same 
metal,  adorned  with  a  royal  crown,  having  the  head  of  a 
calf  (or  steer),  and  his  arms  extended,  as  if  to  embrace 
-any  one.    When  they  would  offer  any  children  to  him, 


THEOLOGICAL   PISCUSSTON.  325 

tliey  healed  the  statue  within  by  a  great  fire  ;  and  when 
it  was  burning  hot,  they  put  the  miserable  victim  within 
his  arms,  which  was  soon  consumed  by  the  violence  of 
the  heat ;  and  that  the  cries  of  the  children  might  not  be 
heard,  they  made  a  great  noise  with  drums  and  other  in- 
struments about  the  idol." 

Having  compared  the  future  state  of  the  wicked  to 
gehenna,  and  their  punishment  and  pollution  to  fire  and 
worms,  Christ  assures  us  of  the  perpetuity  of  all  the 
three,  by  declaring  that  their  Avorm  dieth  not  and  the  fire 
is  not  quenched.  "  If  thy  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off;  it 
is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than  having 
two  hands  to  go  into  hell,  (gehenna,)  into  the  fire  that  never 
shall  be  quenched  :  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the 
fire  is  not  quenched.  And  if  thy  foot  offend  thee,  cut  it 
off:  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  halt  into  life,  than  ha- 
ving two  feet  to  be  cast  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  never 
shall  be  quenched  :  where  their  worm  dieth  not  and  the 
fire  is  not  quenched.  And  if  thine  eye  offend  thee,  pluck 
it  out;  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter,  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  with  one  eye,  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into 
hell  fire  :  where  their  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched,"  Mark  ix.  43—48. 

In  my  apprehension  it  has  thus  been  suflficiently  proved, 
that  in  hades,  the  world  of  departed  spirits,  there  is  a  par' 
adise,  a  state  of  holy  happiness  with  Christ,  for  all  hi? 
people,  and  a  gehenna  of  fire,  ydwa  tov  irvpo?,  into  which 
the  wicked  are  cast :  and  that  the  fire  of  punishment  in 
this  grhenna  of  hades,  this  hell  of  the  future  state,  is  ever- 
lasting ;  for  it  shall  never  be  quenched. 

My  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God,  is,  that  you  and  I, 
and  all  for  whom  we  should  pray,  may  escape  this  dread- 
ful hell. 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


11* 


136  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  May  17,  1834. 

Dear  Sir — I  have  repeatedly  stated  that  a  passage  which 
'was  future  in  its  reference  ichen  spoken  or  written,  is  not 
necessarily  future  in  its  reference  now.  Disregarding  this 
statement  and  its  obvious  bearing,  you  again  cite  Acts 
xvii.  31,  and  argue,  that  if  God  had  judged  the  world, 
Paul  would  not  have  declared  that  "  he  hath  appointed  a 
day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness." 
1  have  several  times  referred  you  to  the  fact,  (by  empha- 
sizing the  passage,)  that  God  was  thus  to  judge  the  world, 
under  the  gospel,  "  BY  THAT  MAN  whom  he  had  or- 
dained ;"  or  as  in  Rom.  ii.  16,  "  In  the  day  when  God 
shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  BY  JESUS  CHRIST, 
according  to  my  gospel."  But  this  surely  does  not  sup- 
j)ose  that  God  had  not  previously  judged  the  world  HIM- 
"SELF.  It  is  written,  "  He  is  a  God  that  judgeth  in  the 
■earth,"  Psalm  Iviii.  11.  The  Father,  however,  "  com- 
mitted all  judgment  unto  the  Son,"  John  v.  22  ;  appointed 
iiim  a  kingdom,  Luke  xxii.  29,  and  a  day  or  time  to  reign 
— in  proof  of  which,  numberless  passages  might  be  ad- 
duced, were  it  necessary.  Jesus  came  in  his  kingdom  be- 
fore the  close  of  the  generation  in  which  he  lived,  MatL 
xvi.  27,  28.  Then  commenced  the  day  in  which  God  was 
to  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  to  whom 
all  judgment  had  been  committed.  Paul  certified  the 
Athenians,  not  that  mankind  should  be  raised  from  the 
4ead  to  be  judged  in  the  manner  stated,  but  that  God  had 
raised  his  Son  from  the  dead  as  an  assurance  that  he 
«o(mW  judge  the  world  iy  that  man  whom  he  had  ordained. 

In  reference  to  your  citation  of  Rev.  xx.  13, 1  may  re- 
mark, that  I  profess  little  acquaintance  with  the  hyper- 
bolical instructions  of  the  Apocalypse.  Commentators 
of  every  sect  have  acknowledged  their  ignorance  as  to 
the  meaning  of  many  portions  of  the  book  ;  and  neither 
of  us  would  lose  any  thing,  in  the  estimation  of  judicious 
persons,  were  we  to  unite  in  a  similar  acknowledgment. 
Though  I^hall  not  attempt  to  explain  the  mcaiiing  of  the 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  127 

passasfe  you  have  quoted,  I  may  call  your  attention  to  the 
foUowinG:  considerations  : 

1st.  Tlie  passage  contains  nothing  that  will  justify  you 
in  assuming  tliat  the  lilcralhi  dead  are  spoken  of — nor  that 
the  dead  were  restored  to  life  hefore  they  were  judged. 
John  saw  the  "  dead  stand  before  God" — not  the  livinir. 
The  difficulty  is  removed  hy  allowing  that  the  morally 
dead  are  signified. 

2d.  In  another  part  of  your  letter  you  state,  that  hades 
is  the  place  of  departed  spirits,  in  which  there  is  a  para- 
dise and  a  gchcnna  nf  fire.  But  the  passage  before  us  de- 
clares, that  not  only  death  and  hades,  but  the  sea  gave 
up  the  dead.  You  do  not  suppose  that  the  sea  is  a  place 
of  departed  spirits — how  then  could  the  sea  deliver  up 
what  it  did  not  contain?  To  affirm  that  the  sea  simply 
gave  up  dead  bodies,  is  to  yield  your  whole  argument — for 
•you  proceed  on  the  assumption  that  departed  spirits  were 
the  subjects  of  the  judgment. 

3d.  You  allege  that  "it  is  added  in  figurative  langua(re, 
*  and  death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.' " 
"What  authority  have  you  for  supposing  that  one  part  of 
the  matter  is  figurative  and  the  other  literal  ?  In  en- 
deavouring to  remove  a  difficulty  which  you  were  aware 
Avould  arise,  you  have  destroyed  your  entire  argument — 
for  it  is  obvious,  that,  if  the  casting  of  death  and  hades 
iinto  the  lake  of  fire  be  understood  figuratively,  the  giving 
'Up  of  the  dead  by  death,  hades,  and  the  sea,  must  also 
rbe  understood  figuratively.  Where,  then,  is  your  argu- 
;ment  ? 

4th.  In  the  previous  chapter  v/e  have  some  account  of 
a  battle  between  the  beast  and  him  who  sat  on  the  horse. 
The  beast  and  the  false  prophet  Avere  taken,  and  "  cast 
alive  into  a  lake  of  fire  burning  Avith  lirimstone.  And  the 
remnant  were  slain  with  the  sword  of  him  that  sat  upon 
the  horse  ....  and  all  the  fowls  were  filled  with  their 
flesh."  Here  the  lake  of  fire  is  spoken  of— but  no  one 
discovers  the  propriety  of  applying  such  language  to  the 
concerns  of  a  future  state  of  being. 

5th.  In  the  first  verse  of  llie  Apocalypse  it  is  written  ; 


1-28  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

"'  The  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  -which  God  gave  unto 
him,  to  show  unto  his  servants  things  which  must  shortly 
COME  TO  PASS."  And  in  the  last  chapter  we  read  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Seal  not  the  sayings  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book ; 
for  the  time  is  at  hand  ....  And  behold  I  come  quickly  ; 
and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to  give  every  man  according 
as  his  work  shall  be." 

6th.  You  have  certified  us,  that  in  hades  there  is  a 
paradise  and  a  gehenna  of  fire.  According  to  your  state- 
ments of  the  destruction  of  hades — the  paradise  of  which 
you  speak,  and  tartarus  and  gehenna,  are  to  be  destroyed 
and  exist  no  more.  Why,  then,  do  you  contend  that  tar- 
tarus signifies  a  state  or  place  of  endless  punishment  ? 
Why  do  you  make  the  same  use  of  the  word  gehenna  ? 
And  why  do  you  quote  passages,  in  W'hich  the  word  liades 
occurs,  in  proof  of  endless  punishment  ?  You  have  told 
us  that  hades,  and  consequently  tartarus  and  gehenna,  are 
to  be  destroyed,  blotted  out  of  existence.  Where,  then, 
is  your  endless  hell  ?  You  will  say,  perhaps,  "  it  is  the 
lake  ofjirey  You  can  have  no  other  answer.  Why,  then, 
■do  you  cite  passages  in  which  hades,  gehenna,  or  tartarus 
occurs  ?  According  to  your  own  argument,  the  entire 
proof  of  endless  punishment  rests  on  the  phrase  "  lake  of 
fire."  And  now,  sir,  I  respectfully  and  earnestly  solicit 
you  to  present  your  reasons  for  supposing  that  this  lake 
of  fire  is  in  the  immortal  state  of  being.  I  beg  you  to 
remember,  that  you  must  either  prove  this  point,  or  admit 
that  the  Bible  knoics  of  no  endless  hell. 

You  quote  Psalm  ix.  17,  and  Deul.  xxxii.  22.  In  these 
passages  the  word  scheol  occurs.  Dr.  Campbell  says  :  "  In 
the  Old  Testament  the  corresponding.word  [corresponding 
to  hadf's]  is  scheol,  which  signifies  the  state  of  the  dead  in 
general,  without  regard  to  the  goodness  or  badness  of  the 
persons,  their  happiness  or  misery  ...  .  It  is  plain  that 
in  the  Old  Testament  the  most  profound  silence  is  observed 
in  regard  to  the  state  of  the  deceased,  their  joys  or  sor- 
rows, happiness,  or  misery."  6th  Prelim.  Diss.  Part  ii. 
§  2,  19. 

Dr.  Jahn  says :  "  The  belief  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  on 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  ^29 

this  subject  was,  that  the  spirits  of  the  dead  were  received 
into  schcol,  which  is  represented  as  a  large  subterranean 
abode,  Gen.  xxxvii.  35 ;  comp.  Num.  xvi.  30 — 33.  Deut. 
xxxii,  22.  Into  this  abode,  we  are  told,  that  the  wicked 
are  driven  suddenly,  their  days  being  cut  short  ;  but  the 
good  descend  into  it  in  tranquillity,  and  in  the  fulness  of 
their  years."  Archaeology,  ^  314.  He  further  states,  that 
as  to  a  difference  of  situation  in  schcol,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  it  "  cannot  be  proved  by  direct  testi- 
mony.^^ He  adds,  "  We  have  not  authority,  therefore,  de- 
cidedly to  say,  that  any  other  motives  were  held  out  to 
the  ancient  Hebrews  to  pursue  the  good  and  to  avoid  the 
evil,  than  those  which  were  derived  from  the  rewards  and 
punishments  of  this  life." 

Dr.  Allen,  President  of  Bowdoin  College,  in  comment- 
ing on  Ps.  ix.  17,  says:  "The  punishment  expressed,  is 
cutting  off  from  life,  destroying  from  the  earth,  by  some 
special  judgment,  and  removing  to  the  invisible  state  of 
the  dead.  The  term  [^scheoQ  does  not  seem  to  mean 
with  certainty  any  thing  more  than  the  state  of  the  dead 
in  their  deep  abode." — Lecture  on  Universal  Salvation. 

The  above  are  the  opinions  of  men  who  strongly  advo- 
cated the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  In  addition 
thereto  I  remark,  that  Ps.  ix  is  evidently  a  thanksgiving 
ode  for  victory  and  deliverance  from  the  heathen,  who 
had  risen  up  against  David.  The  theme  is  the  Lord's 
judgments  in  the  earth,  coupled  with  a  declaration,  that 
the  wicked  and  the  heathen  shall  be  "  driven  into  scheol^ 
i.  e.  pursued  by  victorious  enemies  till  they  are  de- 
stroyed."— NoYEs's  Translation,  note  on  the  passage  in 
review. 

Whoever  will  read  Deut.  xxxii.  22,  with  attention,  will 
perceive  that  your  exposition  thereof  is  without  authority. 
"A  fire  is  kindled  in  mine  anger,  and  shall  burn  unto  the 
lowest  scheol,  and  shall  consume  the  earth  with  her 
increase,  and  set  on  fire  the  foundations  of  the  moun- 

iains.     I  will  heap  mischiefs  upon  them the  day 

of  their  calamity  is  at  hand,"  verse  35.  No  doubt  this 
is  strong  figurative  language,  denoting  the  dreadful  evils 


130  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

that  should  speedily  come  upon  the  Israelites  for  having 
forsaken  the  Lord,  and  broken  his  statutes. 

I  have  not  granted,  nor  do  I  allow,  "ihat  paradise  in 
hades  means  a  state  of  pure  and  perfect  happiness." 
Hades,  corresponding  with  scheol  of  the  Old  Testament, 
signifies  simply,  "  the  state  of  the  dead  in  general,  with- 
out regard  to  the  goodness  or  badness  of  the  persons, 
their  happiness  or  misery."  Paul  speaks  of  a  man  who 
had  been  ^'caught  up  into  paradise,"  2  Cor.  xii.  4;  and 
here  I  allow  that  the  word  signifies  "  a  state  of  pure  and 
perfect  happiness" — but  you  will  notice  that  it  w^s  not 
*•  a  paradise  in  /laf/es,"  the  state  of  the  dead,  but  "  in  the 
third  heaven,''''  to  which  the  individual  referred  to  was 
caught  up.  Christ  descended  into  hades,  or  as  Paul  ex- 
presses it,  "into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,''''  Eph.  iv.  9. 
And  if  the  paradise  mentioned  in  our  Lord's  address  to 
the  thief,  be  in  hades,  it  must  be  somewhere  in  the 
bowels  of  this  earthly  hall.  But  I  have  yet  to  learn,  that 
either  revelation  or  natural  philosophy  teaches  the  ex- 
istence of  a  place  or  "  state  of  pure  and  perfect  happi- 
ness," in  "  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth." 

The  same  general  remarks  are  applicable  to  tartarus 
and  gehenna,  both  of  which  you  place  in  hades. 

As  to  the  word  tartarosas,  it  occurs  but  07ice  in  the 
Bible — and  for  the  want  of  parallel  passages,  we  may 
not  be  enabled  to  determine  precisely  the  meaning  at- 
tached thereto,  by  the  apostle.  You  may,  if  you  think 
proper,  adopt  the  fables  of  heathen  mythology,  in  relation 
to  tartarus — but  in  this  case,  you  must  receive  the 
ridiculous  stories  of  Ixion,  Sysiphus,  Tantalus,  and 
others  of  the  like  character.  And  you  must  also  search 
for  this  fabulous  place  of  torment,  not  in  the  future  state 
of  being,  but  "within  earth's  spacious  womb." 

For  my  own  part.  I  profess  to  build  my  faith  on  the 
testimony  of  the  Bible.  Peter  was  instructed  to  "  search 
the  Scriptures,''''  namely,  of  the  Old  Testament — and  it 
is  not  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  he  used  the  word  tarta- 
rus in  any  other  sense,  than  that  in  which  the  word 
ccheol  was  used  in  "the  law  and  the  prophets." 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  131 

You  say  "that  the  Holy  Ghost  introduced  this  iarta- 
rosas  into  the  sacred  oracles  on  purpose  to  refute  the 
false  doctrine  that  hell  means  nothing  but  the  grave  or 
the  state  of  the  dead."  If  this  Le  true,  then  the  Holy 
Ghost  introduced  a  word  into  a  single  passage  of  the 
Bible,  on  purpose  to  contradict  and  refute  all  that  had 
been  written  previously  in  relation  to  the  state  of  the 
dead! 

I  have  already  quoted  from  Drs.  Campbell,  Jahn,  and 
Allen — and  I  will  add  thereto,  another  citation  from 
Campbell.  He  says,  "  In  my  judgment,  it  f  the  word 
hades']  ought  never  in  Scripture  to  be  rendered  hell,  at 
least  in  the  sense  wherein  that  word  is  now  universally  un- 
derstood by  Christians. ...It  is  very  plain,  that  neither  in 
the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  nor  in  the 
Nev/,  does  the  word  hades  convey  the  meaning  which 
the  present  English  word  hell,  in  the  Christian  usage, 
always  conveys  to  our  minds."  He  proceeds  to  say,  as 
before  quoted,  that  the  word  in  question  signifies  simply 
"  the  state  of  the  dead,  without  regard  to  the  goodness 
or  badness  of  the  persons,  their  happiness  or  misery." 
And  I  apprehend  that  Peter,  in  using  the  word  tarturo- 
sas,  attached  to  it  precisely  the  signification  of  scheol  or 
hades. 

I  approve  of  much  that  you  have  written  in  relation  to 
gehenna.  You  are  correct  in  your  derivation  of  the 
word,  and  I  thank  you  for  having  informed  our  readers 
that  it  primarily  signified  the  Valley  of  Hinnom,  which 
lay  near  Jerusalem.  In  this  valley,  sacrifices  were  offered 
to  the  Animonitish  idol,  Molech.  It  was  subsequently 
defiled,  being  selected  as  the  depot  of  the  filth  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Here  malefactors  were  put  to  death — worms  were 
constantly  feeding  on  putrid  carcasses,  and  a  fire  was 
continually  kept  burning  to  consume  the  filth.  I  might 
mention  many  particulars  appertaining  to  this  subject^ 
which  would  perhaps  be  interesting  and  profitable  to  our 
readers— but  a  desire  to  be  as  brief  as  possible,  admo- 
nishes me  to  forbear. 

In  my  judi^'iuent,  your  argument  in  proof  of  endless- 


l^  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION'. 

punishment,  drawn  from  ihe  use  of  the  word  gehenna, 
is  very  deficient,  being  based,  as  I  shall  proceed  to  show, 
in  groundless  suppositions. 

After  giving  a  brief  but  correct  definition  and  descrip- 
tion of  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  you  add,  "  It  is  evident 
from  these  passages  that  gehenna  was  the  name  of  a 
place  of  pollution,  punishment,  and  the  service  of  false 
and  cruel  gods.  What  more  expressive  or  suitable  term 
could  have  been  chosen  to  denote  the  state  of  sin  and 
misery  and  irreligion  beyond  the  grave?"  But  you  first 
take  for  granted  that  there  is  a  "state  of  sin  and  misery 
and  irreligion  beyond  the  grave,"  and  then  inquire  what 
more  suitable  term  than  gehenna  could  have  been  chosen 
to  denote  that  state.  The  reality  must  be  proved,  before 
the  emblem  can  properly  be  chosen. 

You  continue  :  "  The  expression  gehenna  ofjire^  was 
probably  chosen  to  denote  the  punishment  of  hell,  be- 
cause of  the  fires  employed  in  the  service  of  Molech,  and 
the  fires  subsequently  employed  in  burning  the  offals  of 
Jerusalem."  Here  you  assume  the  whole  matter  in  de- 
bate, and  then  inform  us,  that  "  the  expression  gehenna 
of  fir  e^  was  probably  chosen  to  denote"  it.  We  should 
have  nothing  to  do  with  probabilities^  but  only  withi 
positive  proofs. 

I  could  select  other  portions  of  your  remarks,  to  whicb 
similar  exceptions  might  be  taken— but  the  foregoing: 
will  answer  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  introduced^ 
Your  arguments  are  two  in  number.  1st.  You  quote- 
Parkhurst,  who  says,  "  The  Jews,  in  our  Saviour's  time,- 
used  the  compound  word  gehinnom  for  hell,  the  place 
of  the  damned.  And  you  add,  "  This  appears  from  that 
word  being  thus  applied  by  several  Jewish  comments, 
called  Targums,  to  which  he  [Parkhurst]  refers."  On 
this  I  remark,  1st.  Jesus  came  "  to  fulfil  the  law  and  the 
prophets."  He  condemned  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  for 
having  made  void  the  law  of  God  through  their  tradi- 
tions. He  continually  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament, 
which  is  a  key  to  the  New.  The  meaning  of  words  and 
phrases,  as  found  in  the- New  Testament,  must  be  learned 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  133 

from  the  Old,  and  not  from  the  opinions  of  the  Jews, 
any  farther  than  those  opinions  accorded  with  "■  the  law 
and  the  testimony."  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  valley 
of  Hinnom  and  every  thing  connected  therewith,  is  used 
as  an  emblem  of  the  temporal  judgments  coming  upon 
the  Jewish  people.  If  you  deny  this  statement,  I  will 
prove  it.  And  I  call  upon  you  to  adduce  a  single  in- 
stance from  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  the  valley  of 
Hinnom  is  used  as  an  emblem  of  any  other  than  temporal 
judgments  and  punishments.  But  2d.  It  remains  to  be 
shown  that  any  Jewish  Tar  gum  is  of  an  earljer  date  than 
the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era.  You  will  per- 
ceive, that  your  argument  drawn  from  the  usage  of  the 
w^ord  gehenna  in  the  Targums,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose, 
if  you  fail  to  establish  the  position  I  have  just  disputed. 

Your  second  argument  is  predicated  of  the  language 
in  Mark  ix.  44,  ''  Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the 
fire  is  not  [or  never  shall  be]  quenched."  Allusion  here 
is  unquestionably  made  to  the  fire  and  wornis  in  the  val- 
ley of  Hinnom.  Our  Lord  quotes  Isa.  Ixvi.  24:  "And 
they  shall  go  forth,  and  look  upon  the  carcasses  of  the 
men  that  have  transgressed  against  me:  for  their  worm 
shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched;  and 
they  shall  be  an  abhorring  unto  all  fesh."  I  desire  to 
repeat,  that  our  Lord  quoted  this  language  in  Mark  ix. 
43,  et  seq.,  on  which  passages  you  so  confidently  rely  for 
proof  of  endless  punishment.  You  will  not  dispute 
that  the  quotation  from  Isaiah  referred  to  temporal 
punishments,  and  to  temporal  punishments  alone.  Why, 
then,  should  you  apply  the  same  language,  when  uttered 
by  our  Lord,  to  a  future  state  of  wo? 

Concerning  Idumea  it  is  written,  "  The  streams  thereof 
shall  be  turned  into  pitch,  and  the  dust  thereof  into  brim- 
stone, and  the  land  thereof  shall  become  burning  pitch. 
It  shall  not  be  quenched  night  nor  day;  the  smoke 
thereof  shall  go  up  for  ever;  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion it  shall  lie  waste,"  Isa.  xxxiv.  9,  10. 

Of  Jerusalem  it  is  recorded,  "I  will  kindle  a  fire  m  the 
ffates  thereof,  and  it  shall  devour  the  palaces  of  Jerusa- 
"^  12 


134  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

lera,  and  it  shall  not  be  qiienched,^^  Jer.  xvii.  27.  Again •, 
''  Mine  anger  and  mv  fury  shall  be  poured  out  upon  this 
place,  upon  man,  and  upon  beast,  and  upon  the  trees  of 
the  field,  and  upon  the  fruit  of  the  ground;  and  it  shall 
burn,  and  shall  not  be  quenched,^^  Jer.  vii.  20.  See  also 
Ezek.  XX.  47,  48. 

I  need  not  inform  you,  that  the  above  passages  treat 
of  things  temporal  and  temporary— wox  need  I  mention 
the  beanng  of  the  argument  thus  furnished. 

In  closing  this  letter,  I  will  direct  your  attention  to  the 
following  important  facts,  not  one  of  which  will  be  by 
you  disputed. 

1st.  The  word  gehenna  occurs  twelve  times  in  the 
New  Testament — seven  times  in  Matthew,  thrice  in 
Mark,  once  in  Luke,  and  once  in  James.  Christ  and 
James  are  the  only  persons  who  use  the  word. 

2d.  We  have  no  evidence  that  the  word  gehenna  was 
ever  used  in  addressing  the  gentiles.  John  wrote  his 
gospel  for  the  use  of  the  gentiles — he  does  not  record  a 
syllable  about  gehenna.  Paul  was  emphatically  the 
apostle  to  the  gentiles— he  preached  thirty  years  and 
wrote  fourteen  epistles — yet  the  word  in  question  does 
not  occur  in  any  of  his  writings.  Why  is  this  so,  if  the 
gentiles  had  any  concern  in  the  matter  ? 

3d.  The  word  gehenna  was  twice  used  by  our  Saviour 
in  addressing  the  unbelieving  part  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
The  remaining  nine  times  it  was  used  in  addressing  the 
disciples,  and  the  disciples  alone.  Why  is  this  so,  if, 
accordins:  to  your  views,  gehenna  signifies  a  state  or  place 
of  endless  punishment?  Why  should  that  word  have 
been  but  twice  used  in  addressing  the  unbelieving  part 
of  the  nation  7 

I  might  add  other  facts,  and  propound  other  queries — 
but  the  foregoing  will  be  found  sufficient,  if  they  are  at- 
tended to;  and  if  they  are  neglected,  such  would  also  be 
the  fate  of  as  much  more  as  I  might  write. 

It  is  of  course  understood  that  I  consider  you  grossly  in 
error,  so  far  as  your  belief  in  endless  punishment  is  con 
cerned  ;  and  hope  I  shall  give  no  olience  when  I  say. 


THEOLOGICAL  D1SCDS8I0W.  135 

that,  in  my  judgment,  your  error  in  this  respect  Is  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  error  of  the  Sadducees. 
They  supposed,  as  their  conversation  with  our  Saviour 
clearly  shows,  that  if  there  was  a  resurrection,  mankind 
would  there  possess  the  same  passions  they  possess  in 
the  present  life.  "Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures 
nor  the  power  of  God,"  were  the  corrective  instructions 
of  the  great  Teacher. 

Your  general  argument,  I  perceive,  assumes  that  no 
renovation  is  to  be  effected  by  the  power  of  the  resurrec- 
tion— or  as  popular  opinion  expresses  the  sentiment,  "  as 
death  leaves  us,  so  judgment  finds  us  ;  there  is  no  change 
after  death."  Hence  you  argue  concerning  the  eternal 
destiny  of  any  individual,  from  the  condition  in  which  he 
was  when  he  died.  You  inquire  how  he  laid  down  in 
the  grave,  and  with  what  feelings  and  in  what  estate 
he  departed  this  life.  But  in  the  days  of  Paul  the  que- 
ries were,  "  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?  and  with 
what  body  do  they  come  V  1  Cor.  xv.  35.  The  answer 
is  given  in  the  voice  of  inspiration :  It  is  raised  in  incor- 
Tuption^  power^  and  glory ;  a  spiritual  body,  in  the 
image  of  the  glorified  Redeemer.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all 
die  ;  even  so  i?i  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  And 
"  if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature^  2  Cor. 
V.  17.  It  is  written,  '"  The  dead  shall  be  raised  incorrup- 
tible, and  we  shall  be  changed.''^  It  was  in  prospect  of 
this  great  and  glorious  change,  that  the  apostle  could 
HOPE  for  the  resurrection  even  of  the  unjust,  Acts  xxiv. 
15.  He  surely  could  not  have  hoped  for  the  resurrection 
of  the  unjust  if  he  had  believed  they  would  be  raised 
from  the  dead  simply  to  suffer  the  unutterable  pangs  of 
endless  torment !  The  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  was,  '*  In 
the  resurrection  they  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  mar- 
riage, but  are  equal  unto  the  angels  ;  and  are  the  chil- 
dren of  God.  being  the  children  of  the  resurrection," 
Matt.  xxii.  29,  30.  In  prospect  of  a  resurrection  of  this 
glorious  and  sublime  character,  we  may  truly  "rejoice 
with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory."  And  I  feel 
confident,  judging  from  your  known  benevolence  and 


136  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

philanthropic  views,  that  a  consummation  of  the  descrip- 
tion referred  to,  must  be  peculiarly  congenial  to  the 
feelings  of  your  heart,  even  supposing  it  to  be  contrary 
to  the  convictions  of  your  understanding. 

Sincerely  desiring  that  such  a  revolution  may  yet  be 
effected  in  your  sentiments,  as  will  direct  your  acknow- 
ledged talents  and  influence  to  the  proclamation  and  de- 
fence of  what  I  esteem  ''  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,"  I  am  affectionately  yours,  &c. 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  July  25th,  1834. 
Dear  Sir — Several  of  the  periodical  papers  of  the  Uni- 
versalists  have  conjectured,  very  reasonably,  that  my  deep 
concern  in  the  ecclesiastical  controversies  now  pending  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  has  caused  my  delay  in  answer- 
ing your  two  last  letters,  and  in  pursuing  our  amicable 
discussion.  The  newspapers  published  by  your  denomi- 
nation of  persons  in  the  United  States,  seem  to  be  almost 
exclusively  devoted  to  one  object^ — that  of  convincing  all 
men,  that  however  they  may  live  and  die,  they  shall  all 
infallibly  be  holy  and  happy  in  an  immortal  future  state 
of  being.  Your  example,  in  most  of  these  publications, 
of  sending  forth  weekly  some  sermon  with  the  proper 
name  of  the  author  attached  to  it,  I  deem  worthy  of  imi- 
tation. Our  newspapers  take  a  more  extensive  scope,  and 
treat  of  every  thing,  by  turns,  in  which  our  fellow  men 
may  be  supposed  to  be  interested.  The  Philadclphian,  you 
are  aware,  is  of  this  general  character  ;  Avhile  its  peculiar 
hearmg  is  on  the  ecclesiastical  concerns  of  that  church  of 
which  the  editor  is  a  minister.  I  cannot,  therefore,  pur- 
sue any  one  subject  of  discussion  to  the  exclusion  of 
twenty  other  objects  of  attention.  And  yet,  could  I  sup- 
pose any  considerable  number  of  Qniversalists  likely  to 
be  convinced,  by  the  olainest  assurances  of  the  word  of 


'niEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  137 

God.  of  the  truth  that  some  shall  be  lost  for  ever,  and 
ihcrebv  induced  to  prepare  lo  meet  their  God  in  peace,  I 
should  think  myself  lm})py  in  editing  a  paper  for  iheir 
sole  benelit. 

It  has  often  occurred  to  me  to  ask,  what  profit  can  Mr. 
Thomas  expect  will  be  derived  to  any  one  from  his  doc- 
trine, even  if  it  is  true  ?  Men  may  be  saved,  and  certainly 
Avill  be  saved,  if  his  theory  is  correct,  whatever  may  be 
their  opinions  about  Universalism.  Belief  in  his  doctrine 
is  not  at  all  connected  with  salvation.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, as  a  means  of  salvation  .that  he  would  write  and 
preach  on  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation.  His  gospel, 
if  it  is  a  gospel  at  all,  is  not  the  power  and  wisdom  of 
God  unto  salvation,  for  salvation  would  come  to  all  men 
independently  of  any  knowledge  of  this  good  news. 

It  has  also  occurred  to  me  to  inquire,  if  Mr.  Thomas 
has  ever  known  the  preaching  of  the  doctrine  of  universal 
salvation  to  be  the  means  of  reforming  the  moral  conduct 
of  any  wicked  man?  I  do  not  deny,  that  a  Universalist 
may  teach  many  of  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  and  that  they 
may  be  the  means  of  amending  the  life ;  but  did  the  pro- 
clamation, that  all  men,  live  and  die  as  they  may,  shall 
infallibly  be  happy  in  heaven,  ever  bring  any  sinner  to 
repentance ;  ever  make  any  drunkard  become  a  sober 
man;  ever  render  any  polluted  mortal  chaste — or  ever 
incline  a  prayerless  and  graceless  man  to  pray,  and  serve 
God  in  a  spiritual  manner  ?  I  do  not  affirm  that  this 
never  was  the  case,  but  I  ask  for  the  candid  testimony 
of  a  Universalist  on  this  subject.  A  gospel  which  does 
not  make  a  transgressor  cease  from  doing  evil  and 
learn  to  do  well,  is  not  profitable  for  the  life  which  now 
IS,  even  if  it  should  show  all  to  be  safety  in  that  which  is 
to  come. 

I  do  not  honestly  apprehend,  that  Universalism  is  pro- 
ductive of  any  other  benefit  than  that  of  quieting  the  con- 
sciences of  the  wicked,  and  filling  them  with  hope  of 
final  safety,  though  they  continue  impenitent  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  worst  crimes  to  which  they  are  inclined.  While 
•lliere  are  allowedly  respectable  and  moral  people  in  the 
12-^ 


138  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

ranks  of  Universalists,  T  seriously  ask  you,  sir,  if  the  mass 
of  any  Universalist  congregation  of  your  acquaintance 
can  be  declared  equal  in  point  of  sobriety,  industry,  and 
good  general  moral  character,  to  the  ma?s  of  any  congre- 
gation of  equal  numbers  in  which  the  doctrine  of  future 
punishment  is  inculcated? 

But  I  am  reminded,  that  the  question  is,  What  say 
the  sacred  Scriptures?  Do  they  teach  the  future,  everlast- 
ing punishment  of  some  of  the  human  family?  or  the 
future  holiness  and  happiness  of  every  individual?  I 
affirmed  the  former;  you  the  latter.  We  have  been  run- 
ning on  collaterally,  each  in  the  citation  of  Scripture  to 
prove  his  own  proposition,  and  to  disprove  that  of  his  op- 
ponent. I  confess,  freely,  that  my  object  has  been,  and 
still  will  be,  not  so  much  to  discuss  passages  critically, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  learned,  who  may  not  thank  us  for 
our  labour,  as  to  present  in  a  popular  form  such  plain  and 
scriptural  arguments,  citations  and  illustrations,  as  in  my 
judgment  ought  to  convince  every  unprejudiced  reader  of 
the  Bible,  that  some  sinners  will  be  miserable  for  ever.  If 
in  some  instances  I  have  slid  further  into  critical  disqui- 
sition than  I  had  originally  intended,  it  has  been  with  a 
desire  to  convince  you,  sir,  of  the  truth.  Mainly  I  have 
written  for  the  generality  of  our  readers ;  I  presume  you 
have  done  the  same  :  but  at  times  the  aspiration  arises, 
Oh  that  he  were  wise :  that  he  understood  these  things  ;  that 
he  icoidd  consider  his  latter  end  ! 

My  opinion  that  a  part  of  Matt,  xxiv  refers  to  a  future 
state,  is  founded  on  the  fact  that  the  disciples  asked  two 
questions  :  1st.  What  shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming  ? 
2dly.  What  shall  be  the  sign  of  the  end  of  the  world  ? 
and  on  the  language  of  our  Saviour's  answer.  Had  they 
not  proposed  an  inquiry  concerning  the  end  of  the  ivorld,  as 
distinct  from  the  time  of  his  coming  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  we  might  not  have  looked  fur  an  answer.  He 
told  them  of  his  coming  in  the  last  verse  of  the  preceding 
chapter ;  and  in  the  2d  verse  of  this  chapter  he  assured 
them  concerning  the  buildings  of  the  temple,  "  there  shall 
not  be  left  one  stone  upon  another,  that  shall  not  be 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCU38I0N.  139 

thrown  down."  It  was  tliercfore  very  natural  they  should 
nsk,  ^y/len  shall  these  fhuii>;s  be,  that  thou  liast  predicted? 
What  shall  be  the  sij^n  of  tluj  coming,  of  which  ihou  hast 
just  spoken  ?  And.  as  they  supposed  the  workl  was  then 
to  come  to  an  end,  What  shall  be  the  sign  of  the  end  of  the 
world  ? 

You  agree  with  me,  that  from  the  4th  to  the  35lh  verse, 
Christ  answers  the  question  concerning  his  coming  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem :    concerning    which    he    said, 
"  this  generation  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  he 
fulfilled."     Ey  generation  here   you  seem  to  understand 
the  Jews  then  living;  and  all  of  them  did  not  pass  before 
Jerusalem  was  destroyed.     This,  however,  is  not  the  ex- 
clusive sense  of  a  generation,  in  the  Bible,  for  all  the  Jews, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  world,  constitute  one 
generation  of  men  :  and  all  lying  and  wicked  men  belong 
to  one  generation  of  vipers.     You  affirm  that  the  latter 
part  of  the  24th  chapter,  from  the  3()ih  verse  to  the  end, 
refers  also  to  the  same  coming  of  Christ  to  destroy  Jeru- 
salem.    I  think  it  refers  to  a  future  coming  of  Christ,  be- 
cause it  is  an  evident  answer  to  the  last  question  which  his 
disciples  had  asked,  and  because  by  the  disjunctive  conjunc- 
tion he  turns  from  the  time  of  which  he  had  been  speaking, 
and  says,  "  But,  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man."  He 
then  proceeds  to  say,  that  "  as  the  days  of  Noah  were,  so 
shall  also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  be."     He  shall 
come  on  mankind  suddenly,  when  they  do  not  expect  him  ; 
and  shall  sweep  multitudes  away,  dividing  some  from 
others.     He  does  not  say,  that  all   these  things,  spoken 
after  the  35lh  verse,  but  all  those  spoken  of  before  it,  shall 
take  place,  "  before  this  generation  pass."    Because  Christ 
shall  come  unexpectedly  to  the  final  judgment,  he  com- 
mands all  his  disciples,  saying,  "Therefore,  be  ye  also 
ready:  for  in  such  an  hour  as  ye  think  not  the  Son  of 
man  cometh."  "  Then,"  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come 
as  the  flood  in  the  days  of  Noah,  "  shall  two  be  in  one 
field ;  the  one  shall  be  taken  and  the  otiier  left :"  or  sepa- 
ration shall  be  made  even  between  persons  engaged  in  the 
same  field  of  labour ;  and  then  shall  the  lord  of  the  un- 


140  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

faithful  servant  "  cut  him  asunder,  and  appoint  him  his 
portion  with  the  hypocrites :  there  shall  be  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth."  "  Then,"  also,  says  Christ  in  the 
next  chapter,  "  shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven  he  likened 
unto  ten  virgins,"  five  of  whom  were  foolish,  had  no  oil 
in  their  vessels,  were  unprepared  for  the  coming  of  the 
bridegroom,  "  and  the  door  was  shut."  Afterward  they 
came  crying,  "  Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us  :  but  he  answered 
and  said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  know  you  not.  Watch, 
therefore,  for  ye  know  neither  the  day  nor  the  hour, 
wherein  the  Son  of  man  cometh." 

How  can  they  be  saved  who  are  not  prepared  to  meet 
Christ  at  his  last  coming  to  our  world,  and  whom  he  will 
not  acknowledge  ? 

"  For  he  is  as  a  man  travelling  into  a  far  country,"  says 
Christ  of  himself.  Matt.  xxv.  14,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
as  I  have  before  remarked,  is  erroneously  supplied  in  italic 
print  by  the  translators :  "  For  he  [the  Son  of  man]  is  as 
a  man  travelling  into  a  far  country,  who  called  his  own 
servants,  and  delivered  unto  them  his  goods.  After  a  long 
time  the  lord  of  those  servants  cometh  and  reckoneth 
with  them."  The  Son  of  man  who  has  gone  away  into 
heaven,  that  country  far  from  earth,  and  who  has  intrusted 
us  with  all  the  different  talents  we  possess,  Avill  act  in  like 
manner  ;  will  come  to  judge  all  his  subjects.  "  Then," 
to  wit,  in  the  end  of  the  world,  "  he  that  had  received  the 
one  talent  came  and  said.  Lord,  I  knew  thee,  that  thou 
art  an  hard  man,  reaping  where  thou  hast  not  sown,  and 
gathering  where  thou  hast  not  strawed,"  &;c.  His  lord 
answered  and  said  unto  him,  "  Thou  wicked  and  slothful 
servant,"  and  finally  gave  commandment,  "  Cast  ye  the 
unprofitable  servant  into  outer  darkness :  there  shall  be 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth."  Pursuing  the  same 
theme,  and  still  answering  the  question  concerning  the 
signs  of  the  end  of  the  world,  the  Redeemer  says,  in 
simple  verity,  without  a  parable,  "  When  the  Son  of  man 
shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him, 
then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory  :  and  before 
him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations :  and  he  shall  separate 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  141 

them  one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his 
sheep  from  tlie  goats :  and  lie  shall  set  the  sheep  on  his 
right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left."  It  has  never  been 
shown  by  yourself,  or  any  one,  that  this  which  you  call  a 
parable  of  the  sheep  and  goats,  to  whose  separation  at 
night  allusion  is  made,  has  reference  to  events  which 
have  long  since  transpired.  Why  need  I  quote  any  more  ? 
To  the  end  of  the  chapter  Christ  teaches  in  the  clearest 
terms  how  he  will  act  in  the  end  of  the  world,  when  all 
nations  shall  be  gathered  before  him.  This  is  an  event 
which  has  not  yet  arrived,  and  refers  to  a  judgment  yet 
to  come  on  all  mankind.  If  you  assert,  that  the  nations 
nave  ever  yet  all  been  gathered  before  the  Son  of  man, 
and  divided  according  to  their  character,  I  ask  you  when  ? 
and  where  ?  It  is  not  until  we  arrive  at  the  first  verse 
of  the  xxvith  chapter,  that  we  learn  Jesus  "  had  finished 
all  these  sayings,"  which  he  uttered  after  coming  out  of 
the  temple,  being  pointed  to  its  massy  stones,  and  having 
predicted  its  demolition.  From  the  36th  verse  of  the 
xxivlh  chapter  to  the  end  of  the  xxvth,  Jesus  discourses 
in  reply  to  the  last  inquiry  of  his  pupils.  If  you  can 
make  the  declaration,  "  these  shall  go  away  into  ever- 
lasting punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal," 
mean  temporal  judgments  brought  on  the  Jews,  I  must 
think  your  principles  of  interpretation  wrong,  because 
they  render  the  Bible  an  uncertain,  unmeaning  rule  of 
faith. 

I  do  not  admit  that  Christ  ever  acknowledged  his  ina- 
hility  lo  inform  his  disciples  of  the  time  when  the  end  of 
the  world  shall  be.  Your  favourite  M'Knight  may  show 
you  that  Christ  said,  no  man  mokcth  Icnown  that  day.  It 
was  revealed  to  no  mere  man,  and  Christ  did  not  see  fit 
/()  make  known  the  precise  time  "  when  he  shall  appear 
the  second  time,  without  sin,  unto  salvation."  This 
second  time  of  his  appearing,  I  may  remark,  when  he  shall 
come  not  as  a  sin  offering  but  as  a  judge,  is  to  be  after 
men  have  died,  for  "  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die, 
but  after  this  the  judgment;  so  Christ  was  once  offered  to 
bear  the  sins  of  many:  and  unto  them  that  look  for  Jiim 


1^  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

shall  he  appear  the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salva- 
tioD,"  Heb.  ix.  27,  28. 

Because  Mark  and  Luke  record  one  of  the  questions 
which  the  disciples  asked  Christy  it  does  not  follow  that 
Matthew  was  not  correct  in  stating  two  or  three.  Several 
true  witnesses  may  testify  to  several  different  circumstan- 
ces, and  all  which  they  all  attest  is  to  be  credited.  In 
Luke  xvii.  20 — 37,  Christ  discoursed  about  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  in  answer  to  the  Pharisees,  and  used 
expressions  very  similar  to  those  which  he  employed  on 
another  occasion,  when  his  disciples  asked  about  the  end 
of  the  world.  I  do  not  admit,  therefore,  that  Matt.  xxiv. 
36 — 41,  and  Luke  xvii.  26 — 37,  are  parallel  passages. 
This,  however,  is  true,  that  the  coming  of  Christ  at  the 
end  of  the  world  shall  in  many  particulars  be  like  his  com- 
ing to  judge  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  her  destruction  by 
the  Romans ;  and  this  has  led  many  to  conclude  that 
Christ's  prophecy  concerning  his  coming  must  have  a 
double  meaning  and  a  two-fold  accomplishment. 

It  is  true,  that  to  your  arguments  intended  to  prove,  that 
the  faithful  and  obedient  have  the  whole  of  everlasting 
life  in  this  world,  I  have  failed  to  reply  ;  for  if  you  mean 
that  to  know  God  and  Jesus  Christ  is  everlasting  'life 
begun  in  the  soul,  I  agree  ;  but  if  you  mean  that  everlast- 
ing life  is  not  a  benefit  promised  to  all  believers  to  be  en- 
joyed for  ever  and  ever  after  it  is  begun  here,  why  it  seems 
to  me  needless  and  trifling  to  undertake  to  show  that  ever- 
lasting life  does  mean  everlasting  life,  and  not  merely  the 
life  which  the  good  live  in  this  fleeting  state. 

You  wish  me  to  know,  that  the  Almighty  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  endless  in  duration,  not  because  some  derivative 
of  the  Geek  word  aiu)v  (always  being)  is  applied  to  him, 
but  because  Ave  read  of  acpflaprou  Oeov,  the  incorruptible  God, 
Rom.  i.  23. — You  confess  that  aloiviov  expresses  an  un- 
limited duration  in  2  Cor.  v.  1,  but  think  that  the  terms 
used  in  1  Peter  i.  4,  such  as  aipdapro?,  incorruptible,  and 
anapavTos,  Unfading,  and  in  Heb.  vii.  16,  a^caraXurof,  endless, 
are  much  stronger. 

The  very  passage  you  (juote  from  Heb.  vii.  16,  if  you 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCL'SSIO.t.  143 

add  the  next  verse,  will  prove  tlmt  this  is  a  false  pretence: 
for  Jesus  is  said  to  be  made  a  priest  after  the  power  of  an 
endless  life,  (wr/f  a>caTa>vTov,  lor  this  reason,  that  God  had 
testified,  thou  art  a  priest/or  ever,  tn  rov  alu>va.  Thus  his 
endlrss  life  as  a  priest,  resulted  from  his  being  made  by 
Divine  appointment  a  priest /or  ever,  m  rov  a[o>va.  A  life, 
indissoluble,  that  is  aKara^vrog,  is  the  result  of  an  aiu)viov  de- 
cree, or  appointment.  Aia)v<o?,  therefore,  is  stronger  than 
aKaraXvTOi,  according  to  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  lie- 
brews.  It  is  "  because  he  continueth  ever,  he  hath  an  un- 
changeable priesthood,"  Heb.  vii.  24. 

You  say.  "  I  have  shown  that  aiwviov  is  not  unequivocal 
in  its  signification ;  and  I  will  add,  that  your  argument  in 
proof  of  endless  punishment  will  be  essentially  improved, 
if  you  can  find  the  words  a(p9apT0i,  aixapavTog,  aKaTa\iTo;,  or 
either  of  them  applied  to  punishment  in  the  Bible." 

I  reply,  that  ai^aTaXvros  signifies  without  dissolution,  or  not 
to  he  dissolved;  and  ^^jt^  aKa-a'Xvrog,  a  lifeicithout  dissnlulion, 
is  freely  rendered  endless  in  Heb.  vii.  16,  in  opposition  to 
one's  death,  or  dissolution  :  but  the  words  employed  to 
denote  punishment  could  not,  without  great  incongruity, 
and  confusion  of  metaphor,  be  coupled  with  these  terms 
which  you  pronounce  more  unequivocal  than  ai<j)vioi,  end- 
less. The  sacred  writers  had  too  much  good  taste  to  write 
oi  incorruptible  fire,  indissoluble  burnings,  or  unfading  pun- 
ishment. We  may  with  good  sense  and  taste  speak  of 
endless  or  aiu3viov  fire,  burnings,  punishment,  death,  and  life ; 
hence  we  read.  Matt.  xxv.  46,  "  these  shall  go  away  into 
endless  punishment,  en  KwXaciv  aimviov,  but  the  righteous 
tn  (a)»7v  altoviov  iuto  cudlcss  life."  The  words  Oavaroi,  death; 
o\cOpof,  destruction  ;  rvo,  fire  ;  KoXacL^,  punishment ;  aTzoKua?, 
perdition;  QXiraiq,  tribulation;  Kpiais,  damnation;  and  the 
like,  I  repeat  it,  may  well  be  qualified  by  interminable,  end- 
less, and  everlasting;  but  it  would  be  a  violation  of  congruity 
toqualifiy  them  by  incorruptible,  unfadimr,  and  indissoluble  ; 
as  much  so  as  to  speak  of  an  audible  sight,  or  of  a  tangible 
vision.  It  is  unreasonable,  therefore,  to  require  that  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment  shall  be  proved,  if  proved 
at  all,  by  finding  incongruous  affinities,  and  violations  of 


144  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

propriety  in  the  sacred  oracles.  In  connexion  with  the 
fire  of  punishment  threatened,  the  term  unquenchable  is 
used,  and  has  the  same  force  as  indissoluble,  when  con- 
nected witli  life;  for  a  fire  necer  quenched  and  a  life  never 
dissolved  must  each  be  endless.     Moreover,  in  Mark  ix.  43, 

and    Matt.    XVlli.    8,    to   irvp  to  a/wviov,    and  to   trvp   to  aa^t^ov, 

that  is,  aiu)viov  or  everlasting  fire,  and  unquenchable  fire,  are 
used  as  synonymous. 

If  my  life  is  spared,  it  is  my  design  to  pay  some  atten- 
tion to  your  last  letter  in  my  next. 

Yours  respectfully, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  August  2,  1834. 

Dear  Sir — Your  remarks  and  inquiries  concerning  the- 
influence  and  tendency  of  Universalism  would  be  very 
proper,  were  they  relevant  to  the  question  in  debate.  But 
they  are  not — for  our  present  inquiry  is  simply,  Is  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  punishment  taught  in  the  Bible?  or  does  the 
Bible  trach  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  inanhmd? 
I  am  utterly  indisposed  to  countenance  the  introduction 
of  matters  foreign  to  the  point  at  issue.  So  soon  as  our 
present  question  is  finally  disposed  of,  I  will  be  ready  and 
willing  to  meet  you  in  discussion  of  the  influence  and  ten- 
dency of  our  sentiments  respectively,  should  you  feel  dis- 
posed to  engage  in  such  discussion. 

Lest,  however,  your  remarks  should  make  an  unfavoura- 
ble impression  on  the  minds  of  some  of  our  readers,  I  will 
so  far  gratify  you  as  to  say,  distinctly,  that,  in  my  judg- 
ment, the  practical  utility  of  any  doctrine  is  the  strongest 
presumptive  evidence  that  can  he  given  of  its  truth;  that 
a  demoralizing  doctrine  should  neither  be  believed  nor 
taught ;  that  I  believe  Universalism  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
God,  who  revealed  it,  and  commanded  it  to  be  preached  to 
all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith;  that  I  prize  it  for 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  145 

Its  morfiHzing  tendency  and  comforting  influence;  and 
tliat  I  hmnr  it  has  been  instrumental  in  converting  the 
drunkard,  the  profane  swearer,  the  profligate,  and  other 
vik^  persons,  from  the  error  of  their  ways.  1  further  certify 

ff^ou,  that  1  solemnly  believe  such  conversions  to  be  the 
egitimate  eflecls  of  the  doctrine  of  Universalism.  More- 
over, I  feel  much  satisfaction  in  being  enabled  to  testify, 
that  the  societies  of  Universalists  in  this  city  and  else- 
where can  be,  and  are,  hereby  "  declared  to  be  equal  in 
point  of  sobriety,  industry,  anil  good  general  moral  charac- 
ter," to  any  societies  in  which  the  doctrine  of  endless  pun- 
ishment is  inculcated.  I  say,  equal — and  will  add,  if  they 
are  not  better,  better  men,  women,  parents,  children, 
neighbours,  citizens,  they  do  not  come  up  to  the  standard 
of  the  faith. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  sincerely  believe  that  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment  is  exceedingly  baleful  in  its  in- 
fluence— dishonourable  to  God — injurious  to  mankind, 
and  detrimental  to  human  enjoyment.  I  believe  its 
natural  tendency  to  be,  to  corrupt  and  circumscribe  the 
operations  of  that  love  which  is  greater  than  faith  or 
hope — to  make  of  man  the  enemy  of  man — to  foster 
spiritual  pride  and  self-righteousness — to  make  sad  the 
hearts  of  the  righteous  whom  the  testimony  of  Jesus  will 
not  make  sad — and  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  wicked 
that  he  should  not  return  from  his  wicked  way,  by  put- 
ting afar  the  day  of  evil,  and  by  promising  him  an  escape 
from  the  just  demerit  of  his  iniquities.  I  believe  that 
all  the  persecutions,  which  have  filled  the  world  with 
blood,  and  groans,  and  tears,  originated  in  the  principles 
of  partialism.  In  a  word.  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment  stands  directly  opposed 
to  the  nature,  perfections,  will  and  promise  of  God — that 
It  is  at  war  with  the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  gospel 
of  Chiist — that  it  composes  no  part  of  bivine  Revela- 
tioQ — that  it  is  repu2:nant  to  ri:zlit  reason  and  to  ail  the 
noliest  aspirations  of  the  human  heart — and  that  its 
natural  tendency  is  to  evil  in  all  us  protean  fo:ms.     I 

13 


140  THEOLOGICAL  DlSCUSSIO^f. 

say  these  things,  not  by  way  of  retaliation,  but  because  I 
am  solemnly  and  sincerely  convinced  of  their  truth. 

You  ask  me  what  good  can  be  derived  lo  any  one  from 
Universalism,  even  if  it  is  true.  You  seem  to  think  that 
as  all  men  will  eventually  be  saved,  (according  to  this 
doctrine,)  it  matters  not  what  evils  they  may  suffer  in 
the  present  life  ! !  Besure,  you  use  other  language — but 
such  is  the  substance  of  your  remarks.  Allow  me  to  ask 
you,  why  any  one  should  desire  to  be  cured  of  a  painful 
disease,  seeing  that  his  body  will  suffer  no  pain  in  the 
grave  ?  Why  should  a  blind  man  wish  to  see,  a  deaf 
man  to  hear,  a  dumb  man  to  speak,  or  a  lame  man  to 
walk,  each  being  fully  satisfied  that  his  malady  can 
afflict  him  only  in  the  present  life?  You  possess  too 
much  discernment  to  overlook  the  bearing,  and  too  much 
candour  to  deny  the  force  of  these  queries.  You  speak 
of  salvation  as  of  a  matter  ichoUy  pertaining  to  the  im- 
mortal state  of  being.  In  this  you  err.  Allow  me  to 
assure  you,  that  Universalism  is  "  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  every  one  who  believeth,"  and  to  no  other 
persons — for  "  he  tliat  believeth  not  shall  be  damned''' — 
and  "  this  is  the  condemnation^  that  light  is  come  into 
the  world,  and  men  love  darkness  rather  than  li^ht." 

There  is  one  other  part  of  your  irrelevant  observations 
which  I  desire  to  notice.  You  speak  of  Universalist 
periodical  publications  as  being  ''almost  exclusively 
devoted  to  one  object — that  of  convincing  all  men,  that 
however  they  may  live  and  die,  they  shall  all  be  infal- 
libly holy  and  happy  in  an  immortal  future  state  of 
being."  Why  did  you  not  add,  for  the  information  of 
your  readers^  that  though  "  iAe  restitulion  of  all  things, 
which  God  had  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  pro- 
phets since  the  world  began,"  is  the  prominent  and 
leading  doctrine  of  our  papers,  other  and  correlative  sub- 
jects engage  our  earnest  and  constant  attention?  You, 
sir,  have  not  perused  our  written  labours  to  so  little  profit, 
as  to  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  w^e  incessantly  urge  the 
utility  of,  and  the  necessity  for,  "repentance  towards 
God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."— We  "  affirm 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  147 

constantly,  that  they  who  have  believed  in  God  should 
he  careful  to  maintain  good  works,"  for  "these  thin<rs 
are  good  and  profitable  unto  men."  We  hold  that  "the 
grace  of  God  which  bringeth  salvation  to  all  men,  hath 
appeared— teaching  us  that,  denying  ungodliness  and 
worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly,  and  righteously, 
and  godly  in  the  present  world" — for  he  alone  can  be 
truly  happy,  who  is  a  practical  disciple  of  "the  Lamb 
of  God  w^ho  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world." 

I  have  thus  noticed  many  of  your  remarks,  which  obvi- 
ously do  not  belong  to  the  point  at  issue  ;  and  I  beg  leave 
o  repeat,  that  I  will  not  consent  to  discuss  these  matters 
.n  detail,  until  our  present  question  shall  have  been  finally 
disposed  of.  You  will  not  dispute  the  propriety  of  this 
determination. 

Your  argument  on  Matt.  xxiv.  et  seq.  is  substantially 
the  same  as  presented  in  previous  letters.  You  have 
neglected  to  notice  my  reasoning  on  many  points  con- 
nected with  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man.  I  therefore 
propose  to  bring  the  subject  more  fully  into  view.  Its 
innportance  is  obvious— for,  having  admitted  that  a  part 
of  the  chapter  refers  to  events  which  transpired  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  believing  that  the  remain- 
der refers  to  the  immortal  state  of  being,  you  found  it 
necessary  to  point  out  the  verse  at  which  vou  suppose 
the  transition  of  reference  to  take  place.  You  selected 
verse  36.  You  could  not  have  chosen  any  other — for  the 
preceding  context  shut  you  out  entirely  ;  and  you  clearly 
perceived  that  the  adverb  of  time,  in  Matt,  xxv,  required 
you  either  to  stop  at  verse  36  of  Mati.  xxiv,  or  to  allow 
that  neither  of  the  chapters  furnishes  any  proof  of  the 
point  you  desire  to  establish.  This,  then,  is  a  plain 
statement  of  the  case.     Let  us  proceed  to  the  ar2:ument. 

1st.  You  say,  the  disciples  "proposed  an  inquiry  con- 
cerning the  end  of  the  world,  as  distinct  from  the  time  of 
his  coming  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem."  In  reply, 
I  remark,  1st.  I  have  several  times  desired  you  to  notice 
the  fact,  that  the  w^ord  translated  world  in  the  phrase 
".end  of  the  world,"  is  not  Kwafioi  the  material  world, 


148  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

but  aioiv  the  age.  Therefore,  the  assertion  that  the 
disciples  ''supposed  the  [material]  world  was  to  come  to 
an  end"  at  the  comin:^  ol"  the  Son  of  man  is  groundless, 
and  your  argument  is  lost.  2d.  In  verses  G,  13,  14,  ol 
Matt,  xxiv,  '•the  end'^  is  distinctly  spoken  of  in  imme- 
diate connexion  witli  the  signs  that  should  precede  the 

destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Ye  shall  hear  of  wars 

but  THE  END  [ir/mi  end  ?J  is  not  yet There  shall 

be  famines  and  pe-tilences  ....  all  these  are  the  begin- 
ning of  sorrows,  [^ichat  sorrows?]  Then  shall  they  de- 
liver you  up  to  be  afflicted  ....  but  he  that  shall  endure 
unto  the  end,  [what  end  ?]  the  same  shall  he  saved.  And 
this  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the 
world  for  a  witness  unto  all  7L'itio?is,  [see  Matt.  xxv.  32, 
in  which  it  is  declared  that  all  nations  should  be  ga- 
thered before  the  Son  of  man,]  and  then  shall  the  end 
come.  When  ye,  therefore,  shall  see  the  abomination 
of  desolation  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet.  ....  then 
let  them  which  be  in  Judeajiee  into  the  monntains :  let 
him  which  is  on  the  hou<e  top  not  come  down  to  take 
any  thing  out  of  his  house,"  &c.  Who  can  avoid  per- 
ceiving that  all  these  things,  including  the  end  spoken 
of,  were  to  transpire  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem? 
But  3d,  the  disciples  asked  only  two  questions :  "  When 
shall  these  things  be  ?"  viz.  the  desolation  of  the  tem- 
ple ;  "  and  what  shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming  and 
of  the  end  of  the  world?''"'  thus  inquiring  for  the  sign  of 
simultaneous  events.  It  was  "  immediately  after  the 
tribulation  of  those  days,"  viz.  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, that  "the  .sign  of  the  Son  of  man"  was  to  appear 
in  heaven,  verse  30,  and  then  the  Son  of  man  would  be 
seen  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  Avith  power  and 
great  2:!ory.  That  was  al>o  the  sign  of  the  end  of  the 
world  under  the  law.  Then  the  old  covenant  was  to  be 
abolisheil,  and  the  reign  of  Clirist  in  the  kingdom  wiiich 
the  Fatiier  had  appointed  him,  was  then  to  commence. 

2d.  You  offer  some  remarks  on  the  word  "genera- 
tion," but  the  state  of  the  case  is  not  altered  thereby — 
for  you  have  admitted  that  all  of  the  persons  "  then  living 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  149 

did  not  pass  to  their  graves  before  Jerusalem  was  de- 
stroyed;"  and  you  have  concodcd  that  to  the  35th  verse 
inclusive,  the  lani^uage  of  Jesus  referred  to  tliat  destruc- 
tion, and'  not  to  any  thing  yet  future.  I  desire  you  to 
remember,  that  you  do  not  suppose  any  transition  of 
reference  until  you  reach  the  36th  verse  of  the  chapter. 
At  that  point  your  argument  commences;  and  you  seem 
to  think  that  the  disjunctive  conjunction  "  ^?/f,"  settles 
the  question  as  to  said  transition.  ''  But  of  that  daif— 
WHAT  day!  Plainly,  the  day  of  which  our  Saviour  had 
so  particularly  spoken  in  the'preceding  verses. 

3d.  You  say,  in  answer  to  a  remark  of  mine,  that 
Jesus  did  not  '"'acknowledjTe  his  inability  to  inform  his 
disciples"  of  the  precise  day  and  hour  of  his  coming. 
You  quote  M'Knight,  and  call  him  my  favourite.  The 
object  of  so  doing  is  obvious.  But  allow  me  to  say,  that 
the  author  you  mention  is  your  own  hvounie.  and  not 
mine.  I  believe  I  have  not  once  quoted  him  in  this  con- 
troversy—I  have  quoted  Dr.  Campbell  against  him.  But 
this  is  a  matter  of  small  importance.  Campbeix.  Wake- 
field, Newcome.  Clarke,  and  a  host  of  others,  stand 
opposed  to  MKmght  on  the  passage  in  question.  I 
believe  the  received  version  gives  a  correct  rendering  of 
the  original.  The  entire  context  discountenances  any 
other  rendering.  "  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no 
man,  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only." 
The  parallel  in  Mark  xiii.  32.  is  still  more  emphatic. 
'•But  uf  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man.  no,  not  the 
angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father."  It 
would  have  been  foolishness  to  have  said,  no  man  maketh 
?aiown  that  day,  for  no  man  knew  when  it  was  to  be— 
and  how  could  any  one  make  known  to  others  what  he 
did  not  know  himself? 

4th.  You  say,  "I  do  not  admit  that  Matt.  xxiv.  3G— 
41,  and  Luke  xvii.  20—37,  are  parallel  passages."  You 
are  aware  that  to  admit  the  parallehronld  be  to  destroy 
your  whole  argument  drawn  from  Matt,  xxiv  and  xxv. 
You  admit  the  similarity  of  language,  and  the  only  rea- 
son you  assign  for  denying  the  parallelism  is,  that  in  the 
13* 


150  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

one  case  Jesus  was  addressing  his  disciples,  and  in  the 
other  the  Pharisees !  I  cannot  think  you  are  satisticd 
■with  this  reason.  But  allowinpr  tliat  you  are,  T  must  in- 
form you  that  Jesus  iras  (iddressing  his  disciples  in 
both  cases.  See  Luke  xvii.  22.  "  And  he  said  wito  his 
disciples,  The  days  will  come,"  &c.  The  consequence 
is,  that  your  argument  is  lost. 

5th.  You  say,  ''many  have  been  led  to  conclude  that 
Christ's  prophecy  concerning  his  coming  must  have  a 
double  meaning  and  a  two-fold  accomplishment."  But 
will  you,  sir,  pretend  that  such  a  conclusion  is  correct? 
Will  you  risk  your  reputation  as  a  biblical  expositor,  by 
contending  for  said  double  meaning?  In  another  part 
of  your  letter  you  pronounce  certain  principles  of  inter- 
pretation erroneous,  because,  in  your  judgment,  they 
would  •'  render  the  Bible  an  uncertain,  unmeaning  rule 
of  faith."  Are  you  sure  that  this  would  not  be  conse- 
quent of  admitting  a  double  meaning  in  Christ's  prophecy 
concerning  his  coming? 

I  may  add,  while  on  this  point,  that  Whitby,  PearcE, 
Hammond,  Kenrick,  Clarkk,  and  others,  acknowledge 
the  parallel  which  you  deny.  I  might  furnish  many  in- 
teresting extracts  Irom  their  notes,  but  must  be  content 
Avith  the  following  from  Whitby,  on  Matt.  xxiv.  40,  41: 
'•  That  it  relates  not  to  the  final  judgment,  but  to  the 
time  of  the  destruction  of  the  Jews  by  the  lloman  army, 
is  evident  from  the  same  words  recorded  in  Luke  xvii. 
35,  36." 

As  your  entire  argument  drawn  from  IMatt.  xxiv  and 
XXV,  rests  on  the  supposition  that  verse  36  of  chap,  xxiv, 
commences  the  reference  to  events  which  are  yet  future, 
I  desire  your  particular  attention  to  the  proof  of  that  sup- 
position. 

Your  quotation  of  Heb.  ix.  27,  28,  will  be  of  no  service 
to  your  argument,  unless  you  can  show,  1st.  That  natu- 
ral death  is  signified  in  the  expression,  •'  And  as  it  is  ap- 
pointed unto  Toiq  a^e/jiiirots  THE  MKN  oucc  to  dic,  (scc  pre- 
ceding vcrscs,  and  Heb.  vii.  28;)  and  2d.  That  the  se- 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  151 

cond  appearance  of  Christ,  spoken  of  in  verse  28,  refers 
to  any  ullicr  than  tlie  present  world. 

I  ayree  with  yuu  thai  it  would  be  "  needless  and  trifling 
to  attempt  to  show  that  everlasting  life  means  everlasting 
life."  Everlasting  lil'e  is  simply  the  knowledge  of  (xod 
and  of  Jesus  Christ,  John  xvii.  3.  The  believer  enjoys 
it  in  the  present  life,  as  you  admit.  But  I  desire  you  to 
prove,  if  you  can,  that  the  blessedness  of  the  immortal 
state  depends,  in  any  sense,  on  the  faith  of  the  believer. 
Neither  the  belief  nor  unbelief  of  man  can  affect  the 
promise  and  purpose  of  God.  Paul  testifies  that  "  every 
knee  shall  bow,  and  every  tomryc  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father;"  and  this 
great  consummation  of  the  reign  of  Jesus  cannot  be 
thwarted  by  the  present  unbelief  of  any  part  of  man- 
kind. 

You  deny  that  aK-ara'^VTos,  endless,  is  a  stronger  term 
than  ai'wioc,  everlasting — and  you  affirm  that  the  latter  is 
stronger  than  the  former,  because  '•  Jesus  is  said  to  be 
made  a  priest  after  the  poAver  of  an  ok^Icss  Ii/p,  ^wvi  a/caraAi'- 
Tov,  for  this  reason,  that  God  had  testified,  thou  art  a  priest 
for  ever,  eh  rw  nlCva.  A  few  remarks  will  show  the  fallacy 
of  your  reasoning.  Jst.  The  priesthood  of  Aaron  was 
aiwiiov,  everlasting — but  you  will  not  pretend  that  it  was 
endles.'i,  indissoluble.  2d.  The  priesthood  under  the  law 
was  "  after  the  order  of  Aoron,^^  hut  God  testified  of  Christ, 
"  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever,  cftcr  the  order  of  Melchisedec." 
3d.  The  Aaronic  was  a  chans^eahle  priesthood,  inasmuch 
as  the  priests  "  were  not  suflicred  to  continue  by  reason  of 
death  ;''  but  Christ  "  because  he  continueth  ever,  ds  -or  alwva, 
hath  an  unchangeable  priesthood,"  that  is,  there  is  no 
succession  in  the  priesthood,  for  the  Son,  as  High  Priest, 
"  is  consecrated  for  ever  more"  ci?  tov  aj'wva.  4th.  The 
priesthood  of  Christ  is  not  endless — for  he  was  made  a 
priest  for  ever  *'  after  {or  occordins*-  to)  the  power  of  an 
endless  life  ;"  but  it  does  not  follow  that  his  life,  as  a 
priest,  is  endless.  Moreover,  Paul  certifies  that  the  Son 
shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Father,  and  be  him- 
self subject,  that  God  maybe  all  in  all,  1  Cor.  xv.  28.  His 


152  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

mediatorial  kingdom  xciJl  close,  when  all  things  are  sub- 
dued unto  him  and  reconciled  to  God.  So  the  very  argu- 
ment you  bring  to  prove  that  aiuvios  expresses  endless  du- 
ration, disproves  the  position. 

Here  let  it  be  understood  that  the  adjective  in  question 
derives  its  force  primarily  from  the  noun  ai'wv,  to  which  it 
is  relative  ;  and  secondarily,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing 
to  which  it  is  applied.  Now,  as  I  showed  in  a  previous 
letter,  aluv  cannot  signify  eternity — for  we  read  of  the  he- 
ginninp:  and  end  of  at'wv,  of  at'wvtf  plural,  and  of  the  otds  of 
alwv.  Consequently,  the  adjective  does  not,  and  cannot, 
in  itself,  express  an  endless  duration.  Why  have  you 
failed  to  notice  my  reasoning  on  this  important  point  ?  I 
really  attach  some  consequence  thereto,  and  hope  you 
will  honour  it  with  special  attention. 

In  asking  you  to  adduce  your  proofs  of  endless  punish- 
ment, I  did  not  think  of  making  an  unreasonable  demand. 
I  did  not  expect  you  to  find  "  incongruous  affinities  and 
violations  of  propriety  in  the  sacred  oracles."  And  the 
two  facts,  1st.  That  there  would  be  incongruity  in  the 
phrases  incorruptible  torment,  indissoluble  death,  &c ;  and 
2d.  That  no  such  phrases  are  found  in  the  sacred  oracles 
— these  two  facts,  I  say,  furnish  strong  proof  to  my  mind, 
that  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  not  taught  in 
the  Bible.  There  would  be  no  violation  of  good  taste  in 
saying,  "  indissoluble  life  of  misery,"  "  incorruptible  exis- 
tence in  torment" — but  you  will  not  pretend  that  either 
u(p6dprof,  or  aiiapavTog,  ov  dKaTa>>vTog,  is,  in  anij  manner  or  form, 
found  in  the  Bible  in  connexion  with  misery.  The  im- 
mortal existence  is  one  of  purity  and  happiness  ;  not  of 
impurity  and  wretchedness — for  "  in  the  resurrection  they 
are  equal  unto  the  angels,  and  are  the  children  of  God, 
being  the  children  of  the  resurrection."  This  testimony  of 
Jesus  answers  to  Rom.viii.  21,  "The  creature  itself  also 
s/iall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the 
glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God." 

I  desire  you  to  produce  a  single  passage,  if  you  can,  in 
which  any  word  of  equal  force  witha^0apro?,  anapavrou  or 
iKaTa\vTOi,  is  applied  to  punishment,  either  in  the  Old  Tes- 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSStON.  163 

lament  or  the  New.  The  adjective  alZvio^,  will  not  an- 
swer your  purpose — for  that  tliis  word  is  vot  unrqnivocal 
in  its  signification,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the 
spirit  of  inspiration  frequently  applies  it  to  things  which 
were  temporary  in  their  nature  and  character.  For  ex- 
ample, the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  the  law  of  Moses,  the 
possession  of  Canaan,  kc. 

The  word  unquenchable^  which  you  mention,  is  also  not 
to  your  purpose— for  we  read  in  Isa.  Ixvi.  24,  "  They  shall 
go  forth  and  look  upon  the  carcasses  of  the  men  that  have 
transgressed  against  me  ;  for  their  worm  shall  not  die, 
neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched ;  and  tliey  shall  be  an 
abhorring  unto  all  fleshy  The  phraseology  here  used  con- 
fines the  whole  matter  to  the  present  life.  It  was  said  of 
the  fire  that  destroyed  Idumea,  "  It  shall  not  be  quenched^'' 
— yet  it  icas  quenched  thousands  of  years  ago.  It  was 
likewise  said  of  the  fire  to  be  kindled  in  the  gates  of  Je- 
rusalem, '•  It  shall  not  be  quenched^  But  it  was  quenched. 
So  you  perceive  that  the  word  in  question  is  not  definite 
as  to  the  duration  it  signifies.  It  is  certainly  synony- 
mous with  a/iDi/os  in  the  passages  by  you  cited — but  Scrip- 
ture writers  apply  both  words  to  things  which  have  long 
since  ceased  to  be. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia.  August  21,  1834. 
Dear  Sir — You  are  aware  that  the  expression  ^'' for 
ever  and  ever^  is  used  forty-three  limes  in  the  English 
translation  of  the  Bible,  and  in  thirty-eight  of  these  in- 
stances, you  will  grant  that  tU  roi?  aMvas  rov  aidvwv  denote 
an  interminable  duration.  If  God  is  to  reign,  is  blessed, 
is  to  be  praised,  and  is  to  possess  the  kingdom ^or  ever 
and  ever,  equally  plain  and  certain  is  it,  that  the  im- 
penitently  wicked  are  to  be  "  tormented  day  and  night. 


154  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

for  ever  and  ever,"  and  fi:::uratively  speaking,  the  smoke 
ol' their  tormeiu  is  to  nsct-nd  forever. 

If  all  men  are  to  be  saved,  Christ  had  a  fine  opportunity 
of  saving  so,  when  one  asked,  Luke  xiii.  23,  '•  Lord,  are 
there  few  that  he  saved?"  Instead  of  saying,  "'No,  all 
men  will  be  saved."  he  implied  that  there  is  great  danger 
of  failing  of  salvation  ;  and  replied,  ''  strive  to  enter  in 
at  the  strait  gate  ;  for  many.  I  say  unto  you,  will  seek  to 
enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able.  When  once  the  master 
of  the  house  has  risen  up,  and  has  shut  to  the  door,  and 
ye  begin  to  stand  without,  and  to  knock  at  the  door, 
saying,  Lord,  Lord,  open  unto  us;  and  he  shall  answer 
and  say  unto  you,  I  know  you  not  whence  you  are  ;  then 
shall  ye  begin  to  say,  We  have  eaten  and  drunk  in  thy 
jpresence,  and  thou  hast  taught  in  our  streets  ;  but  he  shall 
say,  I  tell  you.  I  know  you  not  whence  ye  are;  depart  from 
me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity.  There  shall  be  weeping 
and  £:nashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  you  yourselves  thrust  out."  At  the  time  when  the 
Saviour  uttered  these  words,  the  persons  whom  he  ad- 
dressed were  members  of  the  visible  church  in  the 
world.  He  spoke,  therefore,  of  a  dilfeient  kingdom  of 
God  from  that  to  which  they  then  belonged  ;  and  of  one 
in  which  they  should  see  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  .Jacob, 
who  had  long  before  died  and  gone  to  the  world  of 
spirit^.  From  that  kingdom  of  God  to  which  these  pa- 
triarchs had  gone,  Jesus  said  that  his  unbelieving  audi- 
tors should  be  for  ever  excluded.  They  were  to  be 
rejected  by  the  Lord  when  they  should,  at  too  late  a 
period  to  obtain  salvation,  make  application  for  admis- 
sion to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  They  were  at  a  future 
time  to  weep  and  gnash  their  teeth  ;  when  they  should 
see  their  patriarchal  fathers,  whom  they  could  never 
have  seen  on  earth.  In  short,  it  seems  to  me  that  nothing 
but  the  grossest  perversion  of  the  Bible,  can  make  this 
passage  leach  any  other  doctrine  than  this,  that  some  of 
the  human  family,  who  were  members  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  iu  the  world,  shall  in  the  future  state,  where  they 


TnEOLOGICAL  Discusaioit.  153 

shall  see  the  departed  ancients,  experience  endless  dis- 
appointment and  misery. 

In  Luke  xi.  26,  the  Saviour  said  of  a  man  possessed 
of  devils,  "  the  last  state  of  that  man  is  worse  than  the 
first/'  Now  there  is  no  stt  le  to  a  man  after  his  last  • 
and  the  last  state  of  this  man  is  not  one  of  holiness  and 
happiness,  for  it  is  worse  than  his  first  state  when  pos- 
sessed with  one  devil  instead  of  many.  This  last  state 
denotes  the  same  thing  as  the  end  of  the  Avieked.  spoken 
of  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  by  Paul  in  Philii)pians  iii. 
18,  19,  where  he  says,  "for  many  walk,  of  whom  I  have 
told  you  often,  and  now  tell  you  even  weepins:,  that  they 
are  the  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ;  whose  end  is 
DESTRUCTION,  whose  god  is  their  belly,  and  whose  glory 
is  in  their  shame,  who  mind  earthly  things."  To  show 
that  himself  and  others  of  a  different  character  should 
have  a  different  end,  he  adds,  "for  onr  conversation,"  of 
rather,  "^  our  TroXhcvfAa  citizenship  is  in  heaven,  from 
whence  also  we  look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jefius 
Christ;  who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be 
fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the 
working  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  all  things 
unto  himself."  Now  your  theory  is,  that  these  very 
persons  whose  end  is  destruction,  are  to  share  the  same 
destiny  with  the  citizens  of  heaven.  Why  should  Paul, 
then,  warn  his  brethren  against  these  enemies  of  the 
cross,  and  say,  '"brethren,  be  ye  followers  together  with 
me— for  our  citizenship  is  in  heaven,"  while  the  end  of 
these  sensual  persons,  whose  god  is  their  stomach,  shall 
be  destruction.  I  do  not  honestly  believe  that  the  apos- 
tle Paul  ever  indulged  in  the  least  expectation  that  all 
men  in  the  resurrection,  will  be  fashioned  like  unto 
Christ's  glorious  body,  and  so  be  saved  by  God's  al- 
mighty power.  He  says  expressly,  that  some  shall  ex- 
perience destruction,  and  shows  that  by  this  term  he 
intends  the  verv  reverse  of  a  glorious  salvation. 

Christ  says,  Luke  xiv.  27,  "  whosoever  doth  not  bear 
his  cross,  and  come  after  me,  cannot  be  my  disciple."' 


156  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

How  can  a  man  be  saved,  without  becoming  a  disciple 
of  Christ  7 

"  I  say  unto  you.  that  none  of  those  men  which  were 
bidden  shall  taste  of  my  suj^per,"  Luke  xiv,  21.  Since 
all  the  benefits  of  the  gospel  are  shadowed  forth  by  a 
sumptuous  entertainment,  of  Avhich  some  shall  never  par- 
take, having  rejected  the  invitation,  how  can  all  be 
saved  ? 

In  Rev.  xiii.  8,  we  read,  that  all  who  dwell  on  earth, 
whose  names  are  not  written  in  the  buck  of  life  of  the 
Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  Avorld,  shall  wor- 
ship the  beast  which  opened  his  mouth  in  blasphemy 
against  God  ;  and  from  Rev.  xx.  15,  we  learn  by  a  pro- 
phetic vision  and  history,  that  when  the  dead  small  and 
<rreat  shall  stand  before  God  to  be  judged,  according  to 
their  works,  then  whosoever  shall  not  be  found  written 
m  the  book  of  life,  shall  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  ''  This 
is  the  second  death."  Now  can  any  be  saved,  whom 
the  Judge  does  not  purpose  to  save ;  and  who  are  there- 
fore said  not  to  be  enrolled  in  the  book  of  life  ? 

In  your  letter  of  the  17th  of  May  last,  you  refer  this 
judging  of  the  dead  small  and  great,  as  you  do  every 
thing  else  about  the  last  final  judgment,  to  some  occur- 
rence, you  hardly  seem  to  me  to  know  what,  in  ihe 
present'life.  John,  you  say,  saw  the  dead  stand  before 
Qod — not  the  living  ;  whence  you  infer  that  the  morally 
dead,  not  those  who  have  literally  died,  were  the  sub- 
jects of  the  judijment  here  spoken  of. 

I  reply,  that  John  describes  a  vision  which  he  had  of 
that  which  shall  occur  after  the  thousand  years  of  mille- 
nial  glory  in  the  church  shall  have  passed.  He  saw  in 
vision  those  who  had  died  live  again  in  body  after  that 
event,  bemg  the  subjects  of  the  resurrection.  When  the 
thousand  years  were  expired,  and  after  Satan  had  been 
subsequently  loosed  out  of  his  prison  to  deceive  the 
world  afjain  for  a  little  time,  and  after  Satan  had  finally 
been  "  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,"'  he  "saw 
a  great  white  throne,  and  him  that  sat  on  it,  from  whose 
face  the  earth  and  the  heaven  fled  away."     Then  he 


THEOLOGICAL     DISCUSSION.  157 

saw  the  dead  small  and  great,  that  is,  all  persons  who 
had  ever  died,  living  ai]:aiQ  and  standing  before  God> 
and  the  dead,  not  remaining  still  dead,  but  restored  to  life, 
'•  were  judged  out  of  those  things  which  were  written  in 
the  books, "according  to  their  works."  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  that  this  judgment,  prophetically  seen  by 
John,  is  to  take  place  after  the  destruction  ot  the  Papacy, 
and  Mohammedanism,  and  after  the  church  shall  have 
occupied  the  whole  earth  for  a  thousand  years.  Pre- 
paratory to  this  judgment,  and  that  the  dead  might  all 
live  acrain  in  their  whole  complex  nature,  "  the  sea  gave 
up  the  dead  thn  were  in  it;"  that  is,  all  the  bodies  of 
persons  buried  in  the  sea  were  raised ;  and  death  and 
hell,  or  hades,  the  state  of  the  dead,  "  delivered  up  the 
dead  that  were  in  them,"  the  spirits  of  men  coming  out 
of  their  separate  state  of  existence  consequent  on  death, 
and  being  again  reunited  to  their  resuscitated  bodies  ; 
and  in  thfs  sense,  death  being  vanquished,  and  hades,  a 
state  of  departed  spirits,  destroyed,  they,  the  once  dead, 
but  then  revived,  small  and  great,  "were  judged,  every 
man  according  to  his  works."  When  the  spirits  of  men 
no  longer  exist  in  a  state  of  separation  from  their  bodies, 
their  heaven,  their  paradise,  will  no  longer  be  in  hades, 
but  in  that  state  of  bodily  and  spiritual  existence  which 
is  to  succeed  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.  After  that 
time  the  wicked  will  no  longer  be  in  tartarus,  a  prison 
of  despair  in  the  state  of  departed  spirits,  but  in  that  ge- 
heniia  fre,  in  which  God  will  destroy  both  soul  and 
body  for  ever;  where  the  devil  and  the  beast  and  the 
fiihe  prophet  "shall  be  tormented  day  and  night  for 
EVER  AND  EVER."  A  State  of  discmbodied  spirits  evi- 
dcntlv  can  continue  and  be  predicated  of  men  no  longer 
than  they  continue  in  a  disembodied  state  ;  and  because 
the  bodies  and  souls  of  men  both  are  to  be  cast  in  a  state 
of  punir^hracnt  after  the  resurrection,  the  Lord  Jesus  said, 
"  fear  not  them  that  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to 
Kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  de- 
stroy both  soul  and  body  in  hell,"  Matt.  x.  28.  This 
desirovinT  of  both  soul  and  body  in  hell,  Christ  appre- 


158  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION . 

hended  to  be  a  real  evil  to  be  dreaded  ;  but  if  your  doc- 
trine is  true,  no  worse  evil  can  come  on  any  sinner,  ever, 
from  God,  than  the  destruction  of  his  body  in  the  grave. 
Surely  you  need  fear,  if  you  are  unwavering  in  your  be- 
lief, nothing  but  men  that  kill  the  body,  for  there  is  no 
God  who  will  destroy  either  the  soul  or  body  in  any  hell 
subsequent  to  natural  death. 

I  have  seen  no  evidence  whatever,  that  when  Christ 
spoke  of  the  Jire  of  hell,  or  of  the  gehenna  of  jire,  he 
either  quoted  or  referred  to  Isaiah  Ixvi.  24,  or  xxxiv.  10^ 
He  merely  used  language  similar  to  that  employed  by 
that  evangelical  prophet  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  by 
Jeremiah  vii.  20,  and  Ezekiel  xx.  47,  when  they  de- 
scribed such  judgments  upon  the  wicked  as  were  to 
bring  them  down  to  endless  pains.  If,  as  you  say,  the 
word  gehenna  was  never  used  in  addressing  the  gentiles 
directly  in  the  New  Testament,  I  shall  admit  that  there 
was  a  peculiar  propriety  in  speaking  to  the  Jews  of  pun- 
ishment under  the  term  of  fires  of  gehenna,  because 
they  were  familiar  with  the  symbols.  There  was  also 
an  equal  propriety  in  addressing  the  churches  scattered 
throughout  Europe  and  Asia,  in  the  use  of  the  word  tar- 
tarns,  as  a  symbol  of  the  state  of  misery  appointed  for 
wicked  spirits.  The  persons  addressed  by  Peter  in  his 
general  epistles,  would  be  as  likely  to  derive  just  ideas 
from  the  expression  of  casting  down  to  tartarus,  as  the 
Jews  from  the  declaration,  that  both  soul  andbody  should 
be  cast  into  the  gehenna  of  fire. 

I  not  only  deny  that  Christ  quoted  Isaiah  Ixvi.  24,  in 
Mark  ix.  43,  but  also  that  the  passage  in  Isaiah  refers  to- 
"  temporal  punishments  alone."  In  this  chapter  the 
Lord  reveals  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  the  universal 
spread  of  the  gospel,  the  gatherinir  of  all  the  nations  into 
the  church  ;  and  the  judgments  of  Jehovah  upon  all  the 
wicked  previous  to  this  desired  event.  He  promises  to 
extend  peace  to  his  church  like  a  river,  "and  the  glory 
of  the  geniiles  like  a  flowing  stream;  and  the  hand  of 
the  Lord  shall  be  known  towards  his  servants,  and  his 
indignation  towards  his  enemies.    For,  behold  the  LomI 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSfnO.t.  159 

will  come  with  fire,  and  with  liis  chariots  like  a  whirl- 
wind, to  render  \u^  anger  with  fury,  and  his  rebuke  with 
flames  of  fire.  For  by  fire,  and  by  his  sword  will  the 
Lord  plead  with  all  flesh  ;  and  the  slain  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  many."  After  this  shall  new  heavens  and  a 
new  earth  be  made,  and  alljlesh  come  to  worship  before 
Jehovah. 

Then  "  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  from  one  new  moon 
to  another,  and  from  one  sabbath  to  another,  they  shall 
go  forth,  (meaning  all  flesh  thai  worship  God)  and  look 
upon  the  carcasses  of  the  men  that  have  transgressed 
against  me;  for  their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall 
their  fire  be  quenched  ;  and  they  shall  be  an  abhorring 
unto  all  flesh."  These  were  evidently  not  literal  car- 
casses, worms  and  fires,  seen  month  after  month  in  the 
valley  of  Hinnom.  The  passage  undoubtedly  means, 
that  after  the  universal  spread  of  the  gospel,  the  people 
of  God  shall  in  all  their  religious  services  contemplate 
the  judgments  of  God  brought  upon  the  wicked,  and 
tiieir  endless  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord, 
shadowed  forth  by  symbols  taken  from  the  literal  To- 
phet.  The  church  in  her  millennial  glory  will  not  cease 
to  remember  the  millions  of  men,  self-destroyed,  whose 
conscience  will  for  ever  be  as  a  gnawing  worm,  and 
whose  sufferings,  like  those  produced  by  unquenchable 
fire.  The  universal  church  will  for  ever  abhor  the  re- 
membered wickedness  of  all  nations  that  have  forgotten 
God,  and  will  be  turned  into  hell.  All  past  generations 
that  iiave  rebelled  against  God,  and  died  in  their  sins, 
will  be  contemplated  as  carcasses  cast  out  into  the  place 
of  polluted  idolaters,  to  become  the  food  of  worms  and 
flames. 

In  the  34th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  not  only  temporal  but 
endless  pains  are  denounced  asfainst  Idumea,  and  "  upon 
all  na  ions,"  in  highly  figurative  language.  In  "  the  day 
of  the  Lord's  ven^^eance,  and  the  year  of  recompenses  for 
the  controversy  of  Zion,"  it  is  said  the  Lord's  "sword 
shall  b"  bathed  in  heaven,  filled  with  blood,"  and  "made 
fat  with  fatuesa."     In  the  same  style  it  is  said,  that  the 


160  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

Streams  of  Idumea,  the  dust  and  the  land,  shall  become 
burning  brimstone  and  pitch,  which  shall  never  be 
quenched,  and  through  which  none  shall  pass  for  ever 
and  ever;  to  denote  the  utter  destruction  of  that  country 
and  the  endless  punishment  of  its  wicked  inhabitants. 
The  same  is  true  when  God  says  of  the  wicked  Jews^ 
whom  he  has  long  since  destroyed  in  hell,  that  his  an- 
ger and  his  fury  shall  burn  against  them  and  shall  not 
be  quenched.  Merely  temporal  fires  must  burn  out,  if 
not  quenched,  but  God  symbolizes  his  punishment  of 
wicked  nations  and  individuals  by  streams  of  burning 
brimstone  and  pitch  that  shall  never  be  extinguished. 
These  very  passages  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  instead  of 
destroying  the  force  of  our  Saviour's  expressions  con- 
cerning the  unquenchable  fires  and  gnawing  worms  of 
hell,  show  that  he  employed  terms  familiar  to  the  Jews, 
and  frequently  used  by  their  own  prophets  to  denote  the 
interminable  vengeance  of  the  Almighty. 

The  Idumea  that  was  denounced  has  been  destroyed ; 
*'  none  shall  pass  through  it  for  ever  and  ever ;"  and  the 
fire  of  wrath  kindled  upon  those  Idumeans  is  burning 
now,  and  the  smoke  thereof  shall  go  up  for  ever. 

In  Jeremiah  vii.  20,  Jehovah  says  of  his  anger,  it  shall 
burn,  and  shall  not  be  quenched ;  and  surely  it  still  burns 
against  those  idolatrous  Israelites  whom  he  slew  in  his 
wrath.  He  caused  tens  of  thousands  of  them  to  be  cast, 
as  to  their  bodies,  into  a  literal  Tophet ;  and  this  external 
punishment  was  but  the  figure  of  that  which  he  brought 
upon  their  souls  in  tartarus. 

The  fire  which  God  kindled  in  the  gates  or  among  the 
rulers  of  Jerusalem,  was  the  fire  of  his  wrath,  and  not  a 
literal  flame  kindled  upon  the  doors  in  their  walls.  The 
fire  of  his  wrath  in  due  time  laid  Jerusalem  waste,  and 
still  burns  against  her  wicked  kings,  nobles,  and  common 
people ;  and  of  thi^  fire  he  said,  Jer.  vii.  20,  "  it  shall 
not  be  quenched." 

In  short,  where  you  find  in  God's  most  awful  denunci- 
ations nothing  but  natural  death  and  endless  blessedness 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSCTOX.  161 

immediately  followinjr,  I  see  temporal  destruction  as  a 
prelude  to  endless  pains. 

You  complain,  that  I  have  disregarded  your  statement, 
"  that  a  passage  which  was  future  in  its  reference  when 
r.poJicn  or  mrittcn,  is  not  necessarily  future  in  its  reference 
??()«'."  This  I  grant,  but  I  deny  that  the  remark  is  appli- 
cable to  those  portions  of  Scriptures  which  speak  t)f  the 
general  Judgment.  Some  events  predicted  by  Christ  as 
future  when  he  spake  on  earth  have  been  fulfilled,  and 
now  we  may  speak  of  them  as  post  ;  but  other  events  yet 
remain  to  be  fulfilled.  It  is  for  instance,  "  appointed  unto 
men  once  to  die,  but  after  this  the  judgment."  Now 
some  have  died,  and  gone  to  judgment:  but  to  you  and 
myself,  and  millions  of  mankind,  death  and  judgment 
are  still  future  events. 

IMoreover,  "  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of 
many  ;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear 
the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation,"  Heb.  ix.  27, 
28.  If  Christ  appeared  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
there  are  others  that  still  look  for  him;  among  whom  I 
profess  to  be  one  ;  yes,  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  persons  who  still  look  for  him,  to  whom  on  his  second 
coming  to  our  world  in  his  bodily  presence  he  shall  yet 
appear,  for  we  have  not  seen  him  ;  and  he  shall  come, 
not  bearing  sin  as  a  sin-offering,  as  he  did  when  he  first 
came,  but  without  sin  unto  their  salvation  who  are  pre- 
pared to  meet  him  in  his  judicial  capacity. 

You  make  what  seems  to  me  a  desperate  efTort  to  show 
that  Acts  xvii.  31,  refers  to  some  past  time,  or  else  to  the 
whole  of  the  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  and  not  to  a  fu- 
ture General  Judgment.  Paul  was  addressing  the  Athe- 
nians concerning  the  true  God,  who  was  "  the  unknown 
God"  to  them,  and  he  assured  them  that  "  he  hath  ap- 
pointed a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  right- 
eousness by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained."  It  is  not 
at  all  likely  that  he  referred  these  Greeks  to  any  tempo- 
ral calamities  about  to  come  on  Jerusalem.  He  did  not 
say,  God  is  now  judging  you  by  causing  the  gospel  of 
Christ  to  be  preached  to  you.  Nor  did  he  say  God  has 
15* 


163  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

already  judged  the  world;  but  God  has  appointed  a  day 
in  which  he  will  do  it  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  the  Fa- 
ther hath  committed  all  judgment.  The  Judge  of  men 
in  the  last  great  day  is  to  be  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 
Immanuel,  or  God  in  our  nature,  and  hence  Paul  said  that 
God  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the 
world  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained.  According 
to  the  gospel  preached  by  Paul,  "  God  shall  judge  the  se- 
crets of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,"  in  the  last  day,  when  all 
the  dead  shall  have  come  forth  from  their  graves.  This 
is  the  real  meaning  of  Rom.  ii.  16,  for  Paul  does  not  there 
intimate  that  his  preaching  of  the  gospel  was  God's  judg- 
ing of  the  world  by  Christ.  The  13th,  14th  and  15th  verses 
of  Rom.  ii,  are  evidently  a  parenthesis,  and  are  so  marked 
in  the  most  accurate  edition  of  the  New  Testament.  Omit 
this  parenthesis  in  reading,  and  you  will  find  that  Paul 
asserts  in  this  chapter,  that  "  God  will  render  to  every 
man  according  to  his  deeds ;"  to  some  who  "  seek  foi 
glory  and  honour  and  immortality — eternal  life  ;  but  unto 
them  that  are  contentious,  and  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but 
obey  unrighteousness, — indignation  and  wrath,  tribula- 
tion and  anguish."  At  the  same  time  he  tells  us  God  in 
judging  the  world  will  be  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  re- 
gard as  he  ought  the  different  circumstances  and  talents 
of  mankind,  so  that  "  as  many  as  have  sinned  without 
law  shall  also  perish  without  law ;  and  as  many  as  have 
sinned  in  the  law  shall  be  judged  by  the  law."  If  you  ask, 
when  shall  this  equitable  judgment  of  all  who  have  not 
heard  the  gospel,  take  place,  the  answer  is,  "in  the  day  when 
God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  accord- 
ing to  my  gospel."  In  preaching  the  gospel,  Paul  told  men, 
that  God  had  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  would  judge 
the  world  in  righteousness:  this  judging  of  the  secrets  of 
men  in  the  last  day,  by  Jesus  Christ,  was  therefore  ac- 
cording to  the  gospel  of  every  other  person  Avho  preaches 
the  same  doctrines  which  Paul  and  Jesus  Christ  did. 

Your  attempt  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  future  general 
judgment  of  the  assembled  world  of  mankind  after  the 
general  resurrection  to  take  place,  because  God  is  a  Judge, 


TIIFOLOaiCAL    DIrfCUSeiON.  163 

and  to  a  certain  extent  executes  righteous  judgments  in  the 
earth,  I  cannot  think  deserves  any  serious  regard.  I  deny 
that  God  has  ever  yet  judged  the  u-orld  collcrdrcli/.  He 
liath  committed  the  judgment  of  tlie  work!  of  mankind 
to  he  collected  after  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  to  Je- 
sus Christ;  and  that  judgment  he  is  to  execute  at  the  ap- 
pointed time,  when  he  shall  descend  from  heaven  Avith 
the  trump  of  God. 

Concerning  the  effects  of  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  I  have  learned  without  going  to  the  Sadducees  or 
Pharisees  for  instruction,  that  "  in  the  resurrection  they 
neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  hut  are  as  the 
angels  of  God  in  heaven,"  spiritual,  active,  intelligent 
immortal  beings,  who  have  entered  on  their  final  state ; 
and  that  in  this  resurrection  some  arise  to  damnation.  It 
is  true,  though  no  sacred  Scripture  ;  and  since  you  have 
first  quoted  the  saying,  I  must  avow  my  belief,  ihaf  as 
death  hairs  us,  so  icill  judgment  find  ns  ; — that  after  death 
there  is  no  saving  moral  change  wrought  in  any  impeni- 
tent sinner ; — and  that  in  the  grave,  or  the  state  of  the 
dead,  no  works  are  done  preparatory  to  the  settlement  of 
•one's  final  destiny. 

The  questions,  How  are  the  dead  raised  vp  ?  And  with 
what  body  do  they  come  ?  were  attributed  by  Paul  to  "  some 
man"  of  infidel  character  who  wished  to  raise  some  phi- 
losophical objection  against  the  possibility  of  any  resur- 
rection. Paul  stopped  the  mouth  of  the  "  fool,"  by  re- 
ferring him  to  the  resurrection  of  a  new  stalk  of  grain 
from  the  seed  buried  in  the  earth.  It  is  just  as  easy, 
"thou  fool,"  for  God  to  raise  up  out  of  the  body  laid  in 
the  grave  a  real  body,  differing  in  many  respects  from 
that  which  was  corruptible  and  corrupted,  as  to  raise  up 
a  green  blade  of  wheat  from  a  bad  grain  of  wheat  sown  in 
the  furrow. 

The  apostle  then  proceeds  to  show  that  real  bodies  dif- 
fer from  each  other  in  many  of  their  attributes,  and  that 
the  bodies  of  mankind,  when  raised  out  of  their  graves, 
will  differ  from  what  they  formerly  were  before  death; 
and  yet  be  real,  material  bodies. 


1'64  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

All  who  die  suffer  dishonour  in  body,  by  being  returnedi 
(0  the  dust  on  account  of  Adam's  sin;  and  these  same 
bodies  in  honour  of  Christ,  shall  be  raised  up  in  all  the 
glory  of  never  dying  frames.  Through  iccnhiess  these 
bodies  were  dissolved,  but  they  shall  be  endowed  with 
such  power  after  the  resurrection  as  will  fu  them  for  their 
everlasting  estate.  Every  natural  body  of  a  man  will  be 
changed  into  an  cthcriaUzcd  or  spiritual  body ;  so  called 
from  its  possessing  many  powers  resembling  those  which 
appertain  to  spiritual  beings. 

To  save  all  discussion  on  these  points,  I  agree  with  you, 
that  as  by  and  through  and  in  Adam,  all  die  a  natural 
death,  so  by^  through  and  in  Christ  as  head  over  all  things 
to  his  church,  shall  all  men  be  made  alive  in  the  last  day, 
the  day  of  resurrection.  Christ,  in  virtue  of  authority 
vested  in  him  as  King  of  the  Church,  will  raise  every 
man  :  but  every  man  in  his  oicn  order.  These  orders  will 
be  widely  different :  and  yet,  every  body  of  every  good, 
of  every  wicked  man,  shall  be  rendered  incorruptible, 
immortal,  powerful,  and  glorious  in  comparison  with 
what  it  was  before  death.  Every  body  shall  resem- 
ble a  spirit  in  the  powers  it  will  forever  exercise,  and 
therefore  may  be  called  a  spiritual  body,  which  in  many 
respects  will  bear  a  resemblance  to  the  body  of  the  Lord 
from  heaven.  All  this  is  taught  in  1  Cor.  xv.  In  rela- 
tion to  all  men,  death  will  be  thus  vanquished  and  the 
grave  destroyed  by  Christ. 

Other  passages  of  Scripture  which  I  have  already  cited, 
clearly  prove  that  some  of  these  immortal,  incorruptible, 
powerful,  spiritual,  and  in  some  respects  glorious  and 
heavenly  bodies  will  be  inhabited  by  restless,  sinning  and 
accursed  spirits  forever.  They  may  be  glorious  in  some 
respects,  as  angels  of  light,  and  yet  be  doomed  in  body 
and  in  spirit  to  the  blackness  of  darkness  forever. 

Many  glorious  and  powerful,  and  naturally  lovely  at- 
tributes of  body  and  mind  belong  to  multitudes  who  are 
in  their  hearts  the  enemies  of  God  ;  and  all  the  natural 
advantages  and  glories  that  will  accrue  to  the  wicked  from 
the  resurrection  will  but  prepare  them  for  endless  pun- 


THBOLOGirAL    DI.SCUSSIOX.  1G6 

ishmcnt.  Indeed  they  must  be  rendered  immortal,  or 
they  could  not  endure  endless  misery.  AViili  all  their 
power,  glory,  and  iinmortiility,  being  n'ladelike  to  the  an- 
gels, being  spiritual  existences  resembling  the  heavenly 
body  of  Christ,  the  wicked  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment,  among  those  principalities  and  powers  which 
are  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places. 

It  was  however  of  the  church  of  God,  of  the  sanctified 
in  Christ  called  to  be  saints,  that  Paul  said  1  Cor.  xv.  49, 
"  as  W£  have  born  the  image  of  the  earthy,  we  shall  also 
bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly."  While  all  after  the 
resurrection  shall  be  immortal  like  Christ,  none  but  saints 
will  like  Christ  be  fitted  for  a  heavenly  home. 

Because  it  is  said  "  in  Christ  Jesus  shall  all  be  made 
alive,"  and  also,  "  if  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new 
creature,"  you  infer,  that  all  who  shall  be  restored  to 
life  in  the  last  day  by  Christ,  shall  be  renewed  persons, 
fitted  in  the  state  and  exercises  of  their  souls  for  everlast- 
ing blessedness. 

You  insist,  again  and  again,  that  all  who  are  so  in 
Christ,  as  to  be  restored  to  life,  are  also  i?i  him  in  such  a 
sense  that  they  are  holy  persons,  the  subjects  of  the  neio 
birth,  of  a  saving  chanp^e,  for  "  the  dead  shall  be  raised  in- 
corruptible, and  we  shall  be  changed.^' 

You  are  undoubtedly  aware,  that  the  apostle  Paul  speaks 
of  all  saints  as  associated  with  himself;  and  of  such  as 
shall  be  alive  at  the  last  day,  not  having  experienced  na- 
tural death,  he  says,  "  we  shall  be  changed."  He  says, 
"We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a 
moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump; 
for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised 
incorruptible,  and  we,"  that  have  not  died,  "  shall  be 
changed."  Here  is  no  intimation  of  mental,  moral  or 
spiritual  change;  but  a  simple  assurance  that  all  who 
shall  be  living  at  the  time  of  the  general  resurrection, 
shall  be  changed  in  body,  so  as  to  become  immortal  and  in- 
corruptible, like  those  who  have  passed  through  the  grave. 

I  admit  that  in  the  same  sense  in  which  all  men  are  in 
Adam,  so  as  to  die  in  him,  they  are  abo  in  Christ  so  as  to 


166  THEOLOGICAL  DI6CUSSI0N. 

be  made  alive  by  him  from  the  dead  ;  but  a  man  may  be 
in  Christ  in  different  scriptural  senses;  and  being m  him 
so  as  to  experience  a  resurrection  by  him,  is  not  inconsist- 
ent with  awaking  "  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt;" 
for  himself  has  said,  "  the  hour  is  coming  in  the  which 
all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall 
come  forth  :  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resurrec- 
tion of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resur- 
rection of  damnation,"  John  v.  28.  In  John  xvth,  Jesus 
compares  himself  to  a  vine  and  his  professed  disciples  to 
branches  in  him.  But  of  his  Father  he  saith,  "  Every 
branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  away." 
Some  branches  do  not  abide  in  him,  and  "if  a  man  abide 
not  in  me  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch  and  is  withered; 
and  men  gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and 
they  are  burned."  Thus  will  multitudes  be  in  Christ  so 
as  to  be  raised  by  him  from  the  dead ;  and  having  been 
always  unfruitful  in  good  works,  will  be  cast  into  the  fires 
of  hell. 

All,  therefore,  who  are  in  Christ  by  baptism  and  a  vis> 
ble  church  relation,  and  all  who  are  in  him  so  as  to  be 
raised  by  him  from  the  dead,  should  hear  his  counsel ; 
"  abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear 
fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine ;  no  more  can 
you  except  ye  abide  in  me." 

If  any  man  is  in  Christ,  by  a  living  faith,  by;  a  vital 
union,  so  as  to  derive  from  him  saving  spiritual  influen- 
ces; if  any  man  is  so  in  Christ  as  to  "abide  in  him;" 
"  walk  in  him,"  "  as  he  also  walked  ;"  and  bring  forth 
the  fruits  of  holy  living,  he  is  indeed  a  new  creature  ;  and 
shall  never  perish  ;  but  except  a  man  become  thus  united 
to  Christ  by  what  our  Saviour  calls  being  born  again, 
which  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  he  cannot  see,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Your  reference  to  Acts  xxiv.  14, 15,  seems  to  me  peculiar- 
ly unfortunate  for  your  cause.  Paul  said  to  the  Roman  Go- 
vernor Felix,  "  this  I  confess  unto  thee,  that  after  the 
way  which  they  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God  of  my 
fathers,  believing  all  things  which  arc  written  in  the  law 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  107 

nnd  the  prophets;  and  have  hope  toward  God,  which  they 
themselves  [the  Jews  liis  accusers]  also  allow  tiiat  there 
shall  he  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  hoth  of  the  just  and 
unjust."  Here  Paul  speaks  of  the  dead  as  being  still 
sonic  of  them  just,  and  some  unjust.  They  retain,  then, 
these  distinct  general  moral  characteristics,  after  they  go 
to  the  grave  and  the  world  of  spirits ;  and  they  remain  re- 
spectively members  of  the  class  of  the  righteous,  or  of 
llie  wicked,  unto  the  resurrection ;  when  they  are  all  to 
come  forth  at  the  sound  of  the  Archangel's  trump.  But 
you  infer,  that  the  unjust  v/ill  be  changed  m\.o  just  per- 
sons, by  the  resurrection,  because  otherwise  you  think 
Paul  would  not  have  regarded  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
as  an  object  of  hope.  Your  argument  derives  all  its  force 
from  the  difference  between  your  feelings  and  those  of 
Paul.  He  had  hope  toward  God  that  there  shall  be  a  re- 
surrection of  the  dead.  His  accusers  allowed  that  this 
hope  is  reasonable  and  scriptural ;  for  they  were  Phari- 
sees and  belicvea  in  a  world  of  spirits  and  the  general 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  In  this  resurrection  he  and 
they  knew  that  the  just  and  the  unjust  were  both  to  arise, 
that  the  judge  might  render  to  every  one  according  to  his 
deeds  an  everlasting  award.  This,  however,  did  not  de- 
stroy his  hope.  He  knew  how  important  it  is  for  the  vin- 
dication of  the  just  themselves,  and  for  the  glory  of  di- 
vine justice,  that  the  oppressors  should  stand  in  judgment 
with  the  oppressed.  Fully  satisfied  that  the  Judge  of  all 
the  earth  will  do  no  wrong,  but  manifest  his  equity,  good- 
ness, patience  and  forbearance  in  relation  to  the  wicked, 
before  the  assembled  universe,  he  still  hoped  for  the  ge- 
neral resurrection.  The  people  of  God  still  have  tlie 
same  hope,  and  look  for  the  Saviour's  appearing,  even 
while  assured  that  the  unjust  shall  be  raised,  and  that  to- 
them  the  judge  will  be  revealed  in  flaming  fire  taking^ 
such  vengeance  as  belonixs  to  Jehovah.  The  punishment 
of  the  unjust  is  not  in  itself  a.i  object  of  complacency, 
any  more  than  the  sacking  of  Jerusalem  was  ;  but  he 
who  wept  over  Jerusalem  and  yet  destroyed  it ;  may  say, 
as  I  live,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked  ; 


168  THEOLOGICAL  Discussio::^. 

yet,  the  soul  that  sinnelh  it  shall  die.  While  we  /????/ sin- 
ners, we  may  hope  that  God  in  due  time  will  vindicate 
himself,  and  his  dishonoured,  defied  government. 

In  commenting  on  Matt.  xxii.  29,  30,  and  Mark  xii.  25, 
vou  seem  to  have  ahandoned  your  doctrine,  \\\^lhy angels 
the  Scriptures  mean  nothing  more  than  human  messengers  ; 
for  otherwise  your  argument  would  be  without  founda- 
tion. All  men  shall  be  holy,  happy,  and  saved  after  the 
resurrection,  you  intimate,  because  then  they  shall  be  as 
the  angels  of  God  in  heaven.  Christ  has  taught  that 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  still  living  persons,  and 
have  God  for  their  God ;  and  that  in  due  time  all  the  dead 
shall  be  raised,  when  they  will  neither  marry,  nor  be 
given  in  marriage,  but  shall  be  "  as  the  angels  which  are 
in  heaven  ;"  possessed  of  spiritual  bodies  which  shall 
need  neither  food  nor  drink ;  shall  never  sleep ;  shall  be 
incorruptible ;  and  shall  be  endowed  with  wonderful 
powers,  such  as  are  common  to  celestial  beings.  Matthew 
and  Mark  say  merely  that  "  in  the  resurrection  they  nei^ 
ther  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  the  an- 
gels of  God  in  heaven."  These  angels  they  may  resem- 
ble in  many  important  particulars,  and  yet  be  miserable 
for  ever.  The  devils  resemble  these  angels  of  heaven, 
and  yet  are  miserable.  It  is  no  where  intimated  that  all 
who  are  raised  from  the  dead  sliall  be  like  the  angels  of 
heaven  in  their  holiness,  or  service  of  the  Almighty.  Your 
quotation  from  Luke  xx.  34 — 36  is  more  favourable  to  your 
position  than  any  which  I  have  yet  seen.  "  And  Jesus 
answering  said  unto  them,  the  children  of  this  world; 
marry,  and  are  given  in  marriage  :  but  they  which  shall 
be  accounted  worthy  to  obtain  that  world,  and  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead,  neither  marry  nor  are  given  itt 
jnarriage ;  neither  can  they  die  any  more :  for  they  are 
equal  unto  the  angels,  and  are  the  children  of  God,  being 
the  children  of  the  resurrection."  Our  Saviour  seems  to- 
me  in  this  place  to  contrast  this  n-orld  with  that  world, 
or  earth  with  heaven;  and  he  says  "  that  theu  which  shall 
be  account! d  ii-orthtj  to  ohiain  that  world,''^  shall  be  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  and  equal  to  the  angels.     These  words  imply 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  109 

that  some  shall  NOT  be  accounted  worthy  to  obtain  that 
world,  and  so  are  not  to  become  the  children  of  God 
by  beinsr  the  children  of  the  resurrection.  This  clause 
conccrninfj  them  which  shall  be  "  accounted  worthy 
to  obtain,"  spoils  the  whole  passage  for  your  use,  and 
confirms  me  in  tiie  judgment,  that  some  shall  rise  to 
go  away  with  the  devil  and  his  angels  into  endless 
punishment.  But  for  this  clause  this  text  would  ren- 
der me  a  Universalist.  Unworthy  as  they  are  of  any 
resurrection,  and  of  that  world  where  Jesus  lives  and 
reigns,  he  will,  nevertheless,  raise  them  from  the  dead, 
'•  for  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of 
Christ :  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in 
his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be 
good  or  bad  ;"  and  this  too,  after  "  our  earthly  house  of 
this  tabernacle"  shall  have  been  dissolved,  2  Cor.  v.  1—10, 

Should  it,  nevertheless,  be  conceded,  that  all  mankind 
shall  be  called  the  children  of  God,  on  account  of  their 
being  raised  by  him  from  the  dead  ;  it  will  not  follow 
that  all  will  be  holy  and  happy  children  ;  for  God  is  the 
father  of  the  whole  human  family  by  creation,  and  pre- 
servation, as  well  as  the  resurrection  ;  and  including  him- 
self with  "  all  nations  of  men,"  who  dwell  on  all  the 
face  of  the  earth,  Paul  says,  with  certain  of  the  Athenian 
poets,  "  for  we  are  also  his  offspring."  Hence  he  argues, 
"  for  as  much  then  as  we  are  the  offspring  of  God,  we 
ought  not  to  think  that  the  Godhead  is  like  unto  gold,  or 
i>ilver,  or  stone,  graven  by  art  and  man's  device."  Many 
of  his  hearers,  notwithstanding,  did  thus  think,  and  were 
actuated  by  no  sentiments  befitting  the  offspring  of  the 
Infinite  IMind.  Just  so,  millions  Avho  will  be  children  of 
God  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  will  be  undutiful 
and  rebellious  children  for  ever;  whose  portion  will  be 
the  blackness  of  darkness. 

Your  doctrine,  that  those  who  are  not  changed  before 
by  true  repentance,  are  to  be  savingly  changed  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  so  as  to  experience  everlast- 
ing salvation,  is  contradicted  by  the  general  tenor  of  gos- 
pel admonitions.  "  While  ye  have  light,  believe  in  the 
15 


170  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

light,  that  ye  may  be  children  of  light."  If  your  theory 
is  correct,  whether  men  believe  in  the  light  or  not  while 
they  have  light,  they  will  become  the  children  of  light  by 
the  resurrection  ;  and  thus  Christ's  warning  was  vain. 
"  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found,  call  ye  upon 
him  while  he  is  near  :"  which  you  render  null  by  teach- 
ing that  whether  men  ever  seek  God  or  not  in  this  life, 
they  will  all  be  sure  to  find  him,  and  to  be  reconciled  in 
soul  to  him  by  the  saving  change  of  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead.  "  We  then  as  workers  together  with  him,  be- 
seech you  also  that  ye  receive  not  the  grace  of  God  in 
vain.  For  he  saith,  I  have  heard  thee  in  a  time  accepted, 
and  in  the  day  of  salvation  have  I  succoured  thee  ;  be- 
hold, now  is  the  accepted  time :  behold,  now  is  the  day 
of  salvation."  Needless  solicitation  and  vain  admo- 
nition are  here,  if  the  day  of  salvation  will  never  pass 
until  all  are  saved;  and  if  all  men  will  at  last  be 
fitted  for  heaven,  Avhether  they  call  upon  God  in  an 
accepted  time  or  not:  or  if  the  accepted  time  in  rela- 
tion to  every  sinner  will  extend  to  the  day  of  judgment, 
and  then  all  be  savingly  changed.  To  some  Christ  said, 
"  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have  life  ;" 
but  you  add,  "  until  the  resurrection,  and  then  the  last 
rebel  will  come,  and  enjoy  life  everlasting." 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  scriptural  doctrine,  that 
some  will  endure  endless  sufferings  after  the  present  life, 
I  allege  that  all  are  sinners ;  that  God  has  revealed  his 
mode  of  pardoning  sinners  ;  that  if  sinners  are  not  par- 
doned they  must  perish  ;  that  some  will  never  receive 
forgiveness;  and  that  of  course  some  will  perish  for  ever. 
To  prevent  all  misapprehension  of  my  meaning,  I  define 
scriptural  pardon  or  forgiveness  to  be  the  remission  of 
the  penalty  of  the  law  to  a  sinner,  which  he  has  incurred 
by  his  crimes,  in  consequence  of  his  redemption  by  Christ 
Jesus.  If  a  sinner  is  not  pardoned  he  must  suffer  endless 
punishment,  which  is  the  penalty  of  the  violated  law  ; 
and  some  shall  never  be  pardoned.  If  this  should  prove  tTue 
in  relation  to  none  but  llie  blasphemers  of  Christ's  day, 
Jt  would  destroy  your  whole  theory  of  universal  salvation. 


THFOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  ]7l 

Aware  that  some  Universalists  deny  any  remission  of 
sins,  I  must  remind  you  that  David  said,  for  well  he 
knew,  that  "  blessed  is  he  whose  transgressions  is  fort^i- 
ven,  whose  sin  is  covered  :  I  said,  I  will  confess  my 
transgressions  unto  the  Lord  ;  and  thou  forgavest  the  ini- 
quity of  my  sins.  For  this  shall  every  one  that  is  godly 
pray  unto  thee  in  a  time  when  thou  mayest  be  found,*' 
Psalm  xxxii.  Christ  has  taught  his  disciples  to  pray, 
saying, "  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors ;" 
and  added  by  way  of  solemn  caution,  "  if  we  forgive  not 
men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father  forgive 
your  trespasses." 

Now  indispensable  as  pardon  is  to  everlasting  salva- 
tion, Christ  assures  us  that  some  shall  never  be  pardoned, 
and  of  course  shall  never  be  saved.  When  asked,  "Lord 
how  oft  shall  my  brother  sin  against  me  and  I  forgive 
him?"  Jesus  answered,  "I  say  not  unto  thee,  until 
sev«m  times  :  but,  until  seventy  times  seven."  Then  he 
added  a  parable  concerning  the  wicked  servant  who 
would  not  forgive  his  fellow  servant,  and  was  delivered 
to  the  tormentors;  and  concluded  with,  "So  likewise 
shall  my  heavenly  Father  do  also  unto  you,  if  ye  from 
your  hearts  forgive  not  every  one  his  brother  their  tres- 
passes," IMatt.  xviii.  35.  That  some  men  live  and  die, 
without  forgiving  or  being  forgiven,  with  the  spirit  of 
malice  and  revenge  in  their  hearts,  is  as  evident  as  the 
day  light.  Because  the  scribes  said,  "  He  hath  Beelze- 
bub, and  by  the  prince  of  devils  casteth  he  out  devils." 
Jesus  said,  "  He  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of,"  or  ob- 
noxious to,  "eternal  damnation,"  Mark  iii.  22—29.  In 
Matt.  xii.  31,  it  is  written,  "but  the  blasphemy  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men  :  whoso- 
ever speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  for- 
given Jmn,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to 
come."  This  blasphemy  is  the  sin  unto  death,  concern- 
ing which  we  may  not  lawfully  pray  that  it  may  be 
forgiven.    Of  course  I  consider  it  as  settled,  by  Christ 


]72  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

himself,  that  every  blasphemer  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
will  he  the  subject  of  endless  punishment. 

This  fate  does  not  belong  to  the  bold  blasphemer  alone, 
for  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter 
therein,"  Mark  x.  15.  "  Then  said  Jesus  unto  his  disci- 
ciples,  if  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  him- 
self, and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me."  Many  never 
do  this,  but  live  and  die  avowed  contemners  of  Christ. 
"For  whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it;  and 
whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find  it. 
For  what  is  a  man  profited,  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole 
world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  or  what  shall  a  man  give 
in  exchange  for  his  soul  ?  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come 
in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels;  and  then  he 
shall  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works."  Then 
it  is  added,  because  Christ's  coming  and  setting  up  his 
kingdom  in  the  world  is  confirmation  strong  of  his  final- 
ly coming  to  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  ;  when 
and  not  before  he  shall  reward  every  man,  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile, according  to  his  works,  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
there  be  some  standing  here  which  shall  not  taste  death, 
till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom," 
Matt.  xvi.  24 — 28.  The  establishment,  and  continued 
progress  of  Christianity  in  the  world,  through  the  Chris- 
tian church,  ought  to  confirm  every  one  in  the  truth  of 
Christ's  coming  at  the  last  day  to  judge  the  world  in 
righteousness,  and  to  distribute  to  mankind  endless  re- 
Avards.  That  which  we  have  seen  and  known  of  his 
kingdom  in  the  world,  should  make  us  willing,  in  any 
circumstances  which  may  render  it  necessary,  to  sacrifice 
our  life  in  this  world,  for  Christ's  sake,  that  we  may  find 
everlasting  life  in  the  heavens.  Natural  and  temporal 
life  should  be  cheerfully  resigned  to  preserve  spiritual  and 
everlasting  life.  And  if  a  mnn  Avill  preserve  his  natural 
life  at  the  expense  of  duty,  let  him  know  that  his  im- 
mortal life  may  be  regarded  as  lost,  for  it  will  not  be 
blessedness. 

Expecting  to  meet  Christ  when  be  shall  come  to  our 


THEOL(X;iCAL   DISCUSSION.  173 

world  nijain,  hi  the  glory  of  his  Father;  and  being  as- 
sured, ilial  wlien  the  just  and  the  unjust  shall  have  been 
raided  by  hiui  out  of  their  graves,  in  the  land  or  the  bed 
of  the  ocean,  he  will  reward  every  man  according  to  his 
works,  I  send  you  this  epistle,  and  pray  that  you  and  I 
both  inav  prepare  to  meet  God,  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth. 
^  ^  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  August  27,  1834. 

Dear  Sir— In  my  last  letter  1  pointed  out  the  error  of 
your  u)ilij  reason  for  denying  that  Matt,  xxiv,  3G— 41, 
and  Luke  xvii,  22—37,  are  parallel  passages.  I  had  pre- 
viously shown,  that  an  acknowledgment  of  said  parallel 
would  destroy  your  entire  argument  drawn  from  Matt, 
xxiv  and  xxv.  I  stated,  and  the  position  cannot  be  suc- 
cessfully controverted,  that  a  failure  to  establish  a  tran- 
sition of  reference  at  verse  36  of  the  former  chapter, 
would  require  an  admission  that  no  part  of  either  of  the 
chapters  can  be  fairly  applied  to  any  other  events  than 
those  connected  whli,  or  immediately  succeeding,  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Inasmuch  as  you  have  vir- 
tually acknowledged  said  parallel,  by  wholly  neglecting 
to  adduce  any  thing  farther  in  denial,  I  feel  justified  in 
assuming  that  you  have  yielded  the  point. 

For  sunilar  reasons  I  feel  at  liberty  to  assume,  that 
you  conceded  the  correctness  of  the  conclusion  consequent 
of  the  facts  stated  in  relation  to  the  noun  «'«^*'.  namely, 
that  the  adjective  aimhs  cannot,  and  does  not,  in  itself, 
express  an  endless  duration.  The  extent  of  duration  it 
signities,  must  in  all  cases  be  determined  by  the  nature 
of  the  subject  or  thing  to  which  it  is  applied. 

The  duration  expressed  by  the  jihrase  ''  for  ever  and 

and  ever,"  mu>t  be  determined  in  the  same  way.     When 

applied  to  things  confessedly  pertaining  to  the  immortal 

5tate,  or  to  subjects  which  by  other  testimony  are  piored 

13* 


174  THEOLOGICAL    DISCL'St-lON. 

to  belong  to  the  incorruptible  life,  then,  in  such  cases,  it 
should  not  be  limited  as  to  the  duration  it  signifies.  So 
far  as  our  present  inquiry  is  concerned,  it  matters  little 
hon-  often  it  is  applied  to  God  or  to  things  of  an  indis- 
soluble nature.  You  are  required  to  adduce  as  many- 
passages  as  you  can.  in  Avhich  the  phrase  in  question  is 
connected  with  punishment — remembering  that  said  pun- 
ishment must  be  shown  to  belong  to  the  future  state  of 
existence.  The  passage  quoted  from  the  Apocalypse  is 
of  no  advantage  to  your  argument — for  it  speaks  of  the 
alternations  of  day  and  night,  which  appertain  solely  to 
the  concerns  of  iime. 

On  your  argument  drawn  from  Luke  xiii,  23, 1  remark, 
1st.  You  assume  that  in  the  question,  "are  there  few 
that  be  saved  ?"  the  querist  had  in  view  the  salvation  of 
the  immortal  state  of  being.  This  I  deny.  2d.  No  one 
save  a  Calvinist  of  the  ancient  order  will  contend,  that 
only  a  few  of  mankind  will  be  the  recipients  of  endless 
felicity.  You,  sir,  have  advanced  rather  more  than  three 
thousand  cubits  into  the  waters  of  EzekiePs  vision;  and 
I  am  not  without  hope  that  you  will  continue  to  advance, 
until  you  find  that  the  waters  are  risen,  waters  to  swim 
in,  but  not  to  be  passed  over.  You  do  not  believe  that  of 
the  whole  human  family,  the  few  will  be  saved  and  the 
many  lost.  Why  then  do  you  speak  of  the  question  in 
review  as  of  a  matter  pertaining  to  the  future  state?  3d. 
You  assert  that  the  persons  addressed  in  our  Saviour's 
answer,  were  '"members  of  the  visible  church  in  the 
world,"  and  that  therefore  Jesus  '*  spoke  of  a  different 
kingdom  of  God  from  that  to  which  they  then  belonged." 
But  you  err  in  the  premises,  and  your  argument  is  lost. 
The  Jews  were  in  a  certain  sense  ''  the  children  of  the 
kingdom,"  Matt.  viii.  12,  for  they  were  the  children  of 
the  patriarchs  to  whom  the  promises  were  made — but 
they  were  not  Christians  in  any  sense,  for  they  did  not 
believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  4th.  In  Matt.  viii.  5 — 
12,  it  is  plain,  that  the  Jcavs  were  the  persons  who  were 
to  be  excluded  from  ihe  kingdom  of  God,  the  gospel 
kingdom,  which  they  shut  up  against  men,  neither  en- 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  175 

tering  themselves,  nor  allowing  others  to  enter  ;  and  that 
the  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  and 
blessin2:s  of  that  kingdom.  See  Matt.  xxi.  43—"  The 
kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a 
nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof,"  viz.  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. TJie  judicious  Lardner  states,  that  the  declara- 
tion, "  Many  shall  come  from  the  east,"  &c.  signifies  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles  to  gospel  privileges  ;  and  Whitby 
informs  us,  that  "to  lie  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  dotii  not  signify  to  en- 
joy everlasting  happiness  in  heaven  with  them,  but  only 
to  become  the  sons  of  Abraham  through  faith."  Indeed, 
"  it  seems  to  me  that  nothing  but  the  grossest  perversion 
of  the  Bible  can  make  this  passage  teach  any  other  doc- 
trine than  this,"  that  the  Jewish  people,  in  consequence 
of  their  rejection  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  were  them- 
selves to  be  rejected  from,  and  the  Gentiles  admitted  to, 
the  privileges  of  his  kingdom  on  earth. 

Onlv  two  states  of  the  man  spoken  of  in  Luke  xi.  26, 
are  mentioned.  The  first,  when  he  had  one  demon — the 
last,  when  he  had  seven — both  states  pertaining  to  the 
present  life.  It  remains  to  be  shown  that  either  the  first 
or  the  last  was  the  immortal  state  of  that  man. 

You  infer  endless  punishment  from  the  declaration, 
made  in  reference  to  certain  persons  whose  god  is  their 
stomach,  "  whose  end  is  destruction.''''  Your  argument 
rests  on  the  meaning  you  aflfix  to  the  word  destruction. 
But  when  Esther  said,  "  How  can  I  bear  to  see  the  de- 
struction of  my  kindred,"  you  do  not  suppose  she  meant 
to  say,  how  can  I  bear  to  witness  their  interminable 
wretchedness  !  The  truth  is,  that  many  men,  when 
speaking  of  religious  subjects,  affix  a  meaning  to  certain 
words  which  those  words  would  not  convey,  if  used  in 
conversing  or  writing  on  any  other  topic.  We  frequently 
say  of  a  man  who  is  idle,  extravagant,  and  intemperate, 
that  his  end  will  be  destruction — and  no  one  misunder- 
stands us  to  have  eternity  in  view.  Of  another  we  say, 
he  is  rushing  lieadlong  to  destruction,  and  our  meaning  is 
not  misapprehended.     But  when  the  word  in  question  is 


176  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

found  in  the  Scriptures,  there  are  many  Avhose  minds  are 
immediately  drawn  to  a  contemplation  of  something  un- 
utterably dreadful  in  the  resurrection  state.  To  this  un- 
warranted popular  prejudice,  and  to  others  of  a  like  cha- 
racter, vou  have  frequently  appealed  in  the  course  of  our 
friendly  controversy. 

To  the  Hebrew  Christians  Paul  said,  "  Ye  are  come 
unto  Mount  Sion,  the  city  of  the  living  God,  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem  ;"  and  to  the  Ephesians  "  Now,  therefore,  ye 
are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  [alluding  to  their 
former  condition  as  Gentiles,]  but  felloiv-citizcns  with 
the  saints  and  of  the  household  of  God."  The  Phiiip- 
pians  were  citizens  of  the  same  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and 
as  such  enjoyed  the  happiness  ever  consequent  of  faith 
in  the  promises  of  the  gospel.  They  were  members  of 
that  "  kingdom  of  God  which  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but 
righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 
And  the  apostle  contrasted  the  soul  inspiring  faith  and 
glorious  joys  of  the  Philippians,  with  the  sensual  gratifi- 
cation of  those  who  minded  earthly  things.  The  de- 
sires and  pleasures  of  the  latter  were  earthly  and  sensual 
— but  the  hopes  and  pleasures  of  the  former  were  spiritual, 
heavenly,  and  divine.  They  looked  in  faith  for  the  Lord 
Jesus,  ''  who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be 
fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the 
working  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  even  all  Things  to 
liimself."  In  this  testimony  Paul  only  mentions  the 
r//^i7<7// of  Christ  "to  subdue  all  things  to  himself,"  but 
he  certifies  us  in  1  Cor.  xv.  28,  that  such  universal  subju- 
gation WILL  BE  the  issue  of  the  gospel  economy.  "  And 
when  ALL  THINGS  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall 
the  Son  ALSO  himself  be  subject  (or  subdued)  unto  him 
that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all.''^ 
Be  sure,  the  Christian  believers  did  not  "  see  all  things 
put  under  him;"  but  they  saw  the  exaltation  of  .Tesus, 
who  "  by  the  grace  of  God  lasted  death  for  every  man;" 
and  they  believed  that  this  exaltation  was  connected  with 
the  determinate  purpose  of  the  Almighty,  that  "  in  the 
;ijame  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  and  that  every 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  177 

tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father." 

It  is  certainly  true,  as  you  allege,  that  he  who  does  not 
bear  his  cross  cannot  be  a  Christian  disciple — but  ii  is  not 
thence  to  be  inferred  that  he  will  be  doomed  to  endless 
punishment. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  blessings  of  Christ's  kingdom 
on  earth  are  shadowed  forth  by  a  sumptuous  entertain- 
ment— and  that  those  who  were  bidden  to  come,  and  re- 
fused, were  not  allowed  to  partake  of  the  supper — but 
you  have  yet  to  show  that  in  the  whole  matter  there  is 
any  reference  to  the  future  state.  Lardner,  Gilpin, 
Whitby,  and  others,  agree  in  considering  it  descriptive 
of  the  rejection  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  the  calling  and 
acceptance  of  the  Gentiles.  Why  do  you  persist  in  as- 
suming the  predicates  of  your  arguments' 

In  your  remarics  on  certain  passages  in  the  Apocalypse, 
you  have  failed  to  notice  many  of  my  arguments  thereon  ; 
and  you  have  also  assumed  many  of  the  points  which  re- 
main to  be  established.  You  utterly  neglect  to  inform 
me  why  you  consider  one  part  of  the  matter  figurative  and 
the  other  literal;  or  why  nothing  is  said  therein  of  a  re- 
union of  departed  spirits  and  dead  bodies;  or  why  you 
suppose  the  dead  delivered  up  by  the  sea  were  of  a  kind 
different  from  those  delivered  up  by  death  and  hades ;  or 
why  the  sea  only,  and  not  the  earthy  is  said  to  give  up  the 
dead  that  were  in  it.  You  neglect  to  notice  my  statement 
that  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone  is  mentioned  in  the 
close  of  chapter  xix.  connected  with  things  obviously  per- 
taining to  the  present  world.  You  overlook  the  fact,  that 
after  the  judgment  spoken  of  in  chapter  xx.  John  "  saw 
that  great  city,  the  holy  Jerusalem,  descending  out  of 
heaven  from  God."  which  language  forbids  your  suppo- 
sition, that  after  said  judgment  the  saints  were  to  ascend 
up  to  heaven  to  God.  The  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife,  the 
holy  city,  the  new  Jerusalem,  the  tabernacle  of  the  gos- 
pel covenant,  came  down  from  God  out  of  heaven  ;  not 
that  the  Church  ascended  to  God  from  the  earth.  Of 
this  holy  city,  this  new  Jerusalem,  all  believers  were  to 


178  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

be,  and  are,  the  inhabitants.  Paul  said  to  the  Hebrews, 
as  before  quoted.  "  Ye  are  come  to  Mount  Sion,  the  city 
of  the  living  God.  the  heavenly  Jerusalem."  Of  every 
one  who  should  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  pro- 
phecy, it  Avas  declared,  '•  God  shall  take  away  his  part 
out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city" — that  is, 
he  should  be  excluded  from  the  privileges  of  the  new 
Jerusalem,  the  gospel  kingdom.  The  time  referred  to 
cannot  easily  be  mistaken.  ''  The  Lord  God  of  the  holy 
prophets  sent  his  ans^el  to  show  unto  his  servants  the 

things  which  must  shortly  be  done Seal  not  the 

sayings  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book,  for  the  time  is  at 
hand.''^  Daniel  was  commanded  to  "shut  up  the  words, 
and  seal  the  book,"  because  the  time  was  not  at  hand — but 
John  was  commanded  not  to  seal  the  book,  because  the 
time  was  at  hand.  Daniel  was  informed  that  "when  he 
shall  have  accomplished  to  scatter  the  power  of  the  holy 
people,  [the  Jews]  all  these  things  shall  be  finished."  He 
speaks  of  "a  time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  was  since 
there  was  a  nation  even  to  that  same  time,"  which  lan- 
guage our  Saviour  quotes  in  Matt.  xxiv.  in  reference  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  and  Daniel  adds,  "and  at 
that  time  thy  people  shall  be  delivered,  every  one  that 
shall  he  found  written  in  the  book."  I  think  these  re- 
marks throw  much  light  on  the  reference  of  the  Apocalyp- 
tic vision.  I  should  be  pleased  to  pursue  the  subject — but 
a  desire  to  be  as  brief  as  possible,  admonishes  me  to  for- 
bear. 

In  connexion  with  your  remarks  on  Rev.  xx.  you  intro- 
duce Matt.  X.  28 — '•  And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the 
body,"  &c.  I  noticed  this  passage  in  a  former  letter,  and 
endeavored  to  show,  which  I  think  I  succeeded  in  doing, 
that  no  argument  in  proof  of  endless  punishment  is 
thence  deducible.  I  informed  you  tLdt  the  language  in 
question  was  addressed  to  the  disciples  of  our  Lord,  and 
to  no  other  persons  ;  that  I  dispute  any  reference  therein 
to  the  Supreme  being;  that  ability  to  destroy  does  not 
imply  determination  so  to  do  ;  and  that  ydwa,  as  used  in 
the  Bible,  does  not  apply  to  any  state  of  being  beyond 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  179 

the  present.  Until  you  see  proper  to  attend  to  these  par- 
ticulars, I  feel  at  liberty  to  omit  any  notice  of  your 
groundless  conclusions.  Besides — you  have  informed 
me  that  gehenna  and  tartarvs  are  both  in  hades ;  and 
you  concede  that  hades  is  to  be  destroyed.  Consequently, 
the  lake  of  fre  is  the  only  hell  you  have  remaining; 
and  it  will  be  of  no  avail  to  cite  passages  in  which 
either  gehenna  or  tartarus  occurs,  unless  you  revoke 
your  concession  in  relation  to  the  destruction  of  hades. 

In  your  comments  on  the  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  which  the  expression,  "shall  not  be  quenched," 
occurs,  you  make  sweeping:  work.  First  of  all,  you  deny 
that  Jesus  in  Mark  ix.  43.  either  quoted  or  referred  to 
Isa.  Ixvi.  24.  In  this  denial  you  are  un.supported  by  any 
commentator  witli  whose  writings  I  am  acquainted.  Dr. 
George  Campbell  is  pointedly  against  you,  Diss.  xii.  P. 
I.  §30.  You  say,  Jesus  only  used  language  similar  to 
that  found  in  Isaiah.  It  is  more  than  similar — it  is  nearly 
xerhatim.  Parkhurst  says,  "  Our  Lord  seems  to  allude 
to  the  Avorms  which  continually  prayed  on  the  dead 
carcasses  that  were  cast  out  into  the  valley  of  Hinnom, 
ydvvav,  and  to  the  perpetual  fire  kept  up  to  consume  them." 
Profes^^or  Stuart  says,  that  in  gehenna  "perpetual  fires 
were  kept  up  in  order  to  consume  the  offal  which  was 
deposited  there.  And  as  the  same  offal  would  breed 
worms,  hence  came  the  expression,  'where  the  worm 
dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched. '  " 

Piut  even  admitting  (what  I  do  not  admit)  that  Jesus 
in  Mark  ix.  only  used  similar  language  to  that  found  in 
Isaiah  Ixvi,  it  is  nevertheless  certain,  ihat  the  significa- 
tion of  words  and  phrases  in  the  New  Testament  must 
be  learned  from  the  Old.  Our  Master  condemned  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  for  having  made  void  the  law  of 
God  through  their  traditions.  He  came  not  to  destroy 
the  law  and  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfil.  The  disciples, 
(to  whom,  and  to  whom  only,  the  language  in  Mark  ix. 
43,  et  seq.  was  addressed)  were  to  ''search  the  Scrip- 
tures ;"  and  it  is  from  them,  namely,  from  the  Scri])tures 
of  the  Old  Testament,  that  we  are  to  learn  the  signift- 


,30  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

cation  of  words  and  phrases  in  the  New.  Now  the  dis- 
ciples knew,  that  the  expression,  ov  cliead/jacrai  it  shall  not 
be  quenched^  was  thrice  used  in  reference  to  the  fire  on 
the  altar  of  the  old  covenant,  Lev.  vi.  9,  12,  13. 

But  you  say  that  in  Isa.  Ixvi.  24,  xxxiv.  10,  Jer.  vii.  20, 
and  Ezek.  xx.  47,  the  evangelical  prophets  ''  described 
such  judgments  upon  the  wicked  as  were  to  bring  thern 
down  to  endless  pains"  ! !  I  am  utterly  astonished  that  a 
man  of  your  reputation  as  a  biblical  critic,  should  have 
given  utterance  to  an  assertiou  so  destilute  not  only  of 
proof  but  of  plausibility.  But  let  us  examine  the  pas- 
sages in  the  order  in  which  you  have  referred  to  them. 

Isaiah  Ixvi.  23,  24,  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that 
from  one  new  moon  to  another,  and  from  one  sabbath  to 
another,  shall  all  flesh  come  to  worship  before  me,  saith 
the  Lord.  And  they  shall  go  forth  and  look  upon  the 
carcasses  of  the  men  that  have  transgressed  against  me ; 
for  their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  fire  be 
quenched ;  and  they  shall  be  an  abhorring  unto  all  flesh." 
Now,  in  order  to  sustain  your  argument,  you  must  either 
admit  that  there  are  neio  moons,  sabbaths^  carcasses, 
icorms,  and  fires,  in  the  immortal  state  ;  or  show  that 
these  are  altogether  figurative  expressions,  and  that  they 
appertain  to  the  concerns  of  an  incorruptible  life.  Your 
saying  that  undoubtedly  such  is  the  case,  is  not  deemed 
equivalent  to  proof.  I  make  the  same  remarks  on  Jer. 
xix.  6,  9,  "  The  days  come,  that  this  place  shall  no  more 
be  called  Tophet,  nor  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom, 
but  the  valley  of  Slaughter.  And  I  will  make  void  the 
counsel  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  this  place  ;  and  I 
will  cause  them  to  fall  by  the  sword  before  their  ene- 
mies, and  by  the  hands  of  them  that  seek  their  lives  : 
and  their  carcasses  will  I  give  to  be  meat  for  the  folds 
of  heaven,  and  for  the  beasts  of  the  earth." 

Isaiah  xxxiv.  10.  I  ask  you  to  point  out  a  single  word 
in  this  passage  which  can  even  be  tortured  into  the  sem- 
blance of  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  endless  wo.  The  con- 
nexion of  the  passage  aff'ords  as  much  evidence  that  cor- 
morants, bitterns,  owls,  thornS;  brambles,  dragons,  wild 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  181 

beasts,  vultures,  and  ravens,  will  be  doomed  to  endless 
punisliment,  as  that  such  was  the  fate  of  any  inhabit- 
ants of  Iduniea. 

Jer.  vii.  20,  proves  as  clearly  that  beasts,  trees,  and  the 
fruits  of  the  ground  were  driven  into  endless  despair,  as 
it  does  that  such  was  the  doom  of  the  dwellers  in  Jeru- 
salem. In  verses  29,  34,  the  judgment  that  was  to  come 
upon  the  land  is  plainly  pointed  out;  and  any  one  who 
will  examine  those  passages  will  perceive  their  entire 
correspondence  with  Isa.  Ixvi.  24,  and  Jer.  xix.  6,  9,  and 
also  tlieir  irrelevancy  to  a  future  state.  In  Jer.  xvii.  27, 
it  is  written.  '"I  will  kindle  a  fire  in  the  gates  thereof, 
and  it  shall  devour  the  palaces  of  Jerusalem,  and  it  shall 
burn  and  not  be  quenched."  He  who  can  discover  any 
proof  of  endless  punishment  in  passages  like  the  fore- 
going, must  possess  a  theological  eyesight  of  which  I 
acknowledge  myself  entirely  destitute.  Sure  I  am,  that 
were  I  to  adduce  equally  irrelevant  testimony  in  proof  of 
the  final  liolintss  and  happiness  of  all  mankind,  my 
brethren  in  the  faith  would  be  ashamed  of  their  co-worker 
in  the  gospel. 

Ezek.  XX.  47,  furnishes  as  much  proof  that  endless 
punishment  was  to  be  the  doom  of  "  the  forest  of  the 
south  field"  and  of  "every  green  tree"  therein,  as  it 
does  that  endless  misery  will  be  the  destiny  of  any  of 
our  race. 

You  continue  to  insist  that  the  fire  and  worms  in  the 
valley  of  Hinnom,  are  used  by  Scripture  writers  as  em- 
blems or  symbols  of  interminable  wo.  You  asserted  in 
a  former  letter,  that  such  is  the  sense  in  which  gehenna 
was  used  in  the  days  of  Christ,  which  point  you  thought 
you  had  proved  by  appealing  to  the  Targums.  But  when 
I  desired  you  to  cite  a  passage  from  any  respectable  Jew- 
ish Targum  of  an  earlier  date  than  the  2d  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  you  discovered  that  you  could  furnish  no 
such  citation,  and  silence  on  this  important  point  is  the 
only  answer  1  received.  Allow  me  to  repeat,  however, 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  expositor  of  the  meaning 
of  the  language  of  the  New ;  and  that  the  reality  must 
16 


182  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

be  proved  before  the  emblems  can  properly  be  chosen.  It 
■will  be  time  enough  to  select  the  emblems  or  symbols  of 
endless  punishment,  after  said  doctrine  shall  have  been 
clearly  established. 

You  will  perceive  by  turning  to  my  last  letter,  that  I 
deny  the  reference  of  Hcb.  ix.  27,  28,  to  natural  death. 
I  conceive  that  the  allusion  is  to  the  appearance  of  Christ 
in  the  capacity  of  a  priest,  and  not  in  the  character  of 
a  judge. 

"You  make  what  seems  to  me  a  desperate  effort  to 
show  that  Acts  xvii.  31  refers  to  some"  yet  future  gene- 
ral judgment.  In  reply,  I  remark,  that  Paul,  in  address- 
ing the  Athenians,  did  not  refer  the  Greeks  to  any  tempo- 
ral judgment  coming  on  Jerusalem — nor  to  any  past 
judgment — nor  to  any  then  present  judgment — but  to  the 
then  future  gospel  day,  in  which  God  should  judge  or 
rule  the  world  in  righieousne?s  by  thnt  man  whom  he 
had  ordained.  When  Paul  preached  at  Athens,  Jesus 
nad  not  yet  come  in  the  kingdom  which  the  Father  had 
appointed  him.  Nevertlieless,  our  Lord  had  said,  "  The 
Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with 
his  angels,  [and  this,  as  in  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  was  to  be  '  im- 
mediately after'  the  tribulation  that  came  on  Jerusalem.] 
and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man  according  to  his 
works.  [He  was  to  come  to  do  this — not  that  people 
were  to  go  into  another  world  to  be  judged.]  Verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  there  be  some  standing  here  which  shall 
not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming 
in  his  kingdom,"  Matt.  xvi.  27,  28.  This  coming  of 
Christ  to  rule  or  judge  the  world,  is  the  one  to  which  Paul 
alluded,  as  well  in  writing  to  the  Romans  as  in  address- 
ing the  Athenians. 

You  say,  "  I  deny  that  God  has  ever  yet  judged  the 
'world  collectively?''  The  point  for  you  to  prove  is,  that 
he  ever  will  thus  judge  the  world,  and  that  endless  pun- 
ishment will  be  a  part  of  the  judgment. 

Your  reasoning  on  the  resurrection  is  ingenious,  but  I 
deem  it  sophistical,  and  think  that  a  few  plain  remarks 
will  show  the  fallacy  of  your  conclusions. 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  183 

You  admit  that  all  mankind  will  be  raised  from  the 
dead;  that  they  will  be  made  alive  in  Christ;  that  this 
univiT-val  re.-urroction  will  be  in  incorruption,  glory, 
power ;  that  it  will  be  a  resurrection  in  a  spiritual  body; 
and  that  all  men  in  the  resurrection  will  be  freed  from 
the  appetites,  propensities  and  passions  of  the  flesh.     A 

denial  of  the  latter  statement  would  be  Sadduceeism 

for  the  Sadducees  supposed  that  if  there  was  any  resur- 
rection, men  in  that  state  would  possess  many,  il  not  all, 
the  attributes  of  the  animal  body.  The  question  pro- 
posed to  our  Saviour  was  predicated  of  this  error. 

Passing  by  several  minor  particulars,  which  you 
meniiou  more  as  matters  of  opinions  than  as  positions 
established,  I  shall  proceed  to  notice  all  your  argu- 
ments. 

You  cite  John  xv.  2,  6,  "  Every  branch  in  me  that  bear- 
eth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  away.  ...  If  a  man  abide  not  in 
vic,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered ;  and 
men  gather  them  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  arrd  they 
are  burned."  From  this  testimony  you  argue,  that  many 
of  those  who  shall  be  made  alive  in  Christ,  will  subse- 
quently be  cast  off,  having  ever  been  unfruitful  in  good 
works. 

But  to  be  in  Christ  in  this  mutable  state,  surrounded 
by  temptation,  exposed  to  the  power  of  deceptive  influ- 
ences, and  liable  each  moment  to  be  led  into  sin,  is  a  very 
different  matter  from  being  in  Christ  in  an  unchanging 
state,  removed  from  the  influence  of  tempting  and°cor° 
rupting  circumstances.  He  who  is  in  Christ,  even  in  this 
life,  is  a  new  creature— for  he  "has  put  off"  the  old  man, 
which  is  corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts,"  and  has 
"put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness"— but  he  may  revert  to 
his  former  estate,  and  be  cast  off*  as  an  unfruitful  branch. 
Now,  if  you  can  prove  that  any  one  who  Avill  be  made 
ahve  m  Christ,  in  incorruption,  and  in  a  spiritual  body, 
and  who  is  therefore  a  new  creature,  will  not  abiJp.  in 
Christ,  or  will  ever  again  put  on  the  old  man  which  is 
<:orrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts,  then  you  will  have 


184  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

proved  that  such  an  one  will  be  cast  off— but  not  other- 
wise. 

Besides — "In  the  resurrection  they  shall  be  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  being  the  children  of  the  resurrection." 
But  you  allege,  that  because  many  men  in  this  world  en- 
tertain unworthy  conceptions  of  the  Infinite  Mind,  being 
at  the  same  time  the  offspring  of  Deity,  therefore  '"mil- 
lions who  will  be  the  children  of  God  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead  will  be  unduiiful  and  rebellious  children 
forever."  Setting  aside  the  insufficiency  of  the  reason- 
ing from  which  this  conclusion  is  drawn,  I  feel  much 
satisfaction  in  being  enabled  to  inform  you,  that  "  the 
creation  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage 
of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty"  of  the  children 
of  God,"  Rom.  viii.  And  that  this  glorious  liberty  ex- 
cludes the  idea  of  sin  and  suffering,  is  too  apparent  to 
require  proof. 

You  seem  to  think  that  by  the  simple,  abstract  resur- 
rection of  all  mankind,  death  will  be  destroyed  ;  and 
that  this  is  all  the  apostle  meant  by  saying,  "the  last 
enemy  shall  be  destroyed,  death."  But  according  to  your 
theory  of  endless  punishment,  their  is  a  later  enemy  than 
the  last ! 

You  think  that  the  expression,  '"  as  we  have  borne  the 
image  of  the  earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the 
heavenly,"  is  restricted  in  its  reference  to  believers. 
On  the  contrary,  I  consider  it  expressive,  in  a  more  ex- 
plicit form,  of  the  sentiment  of  the  declaration,  "  As  in 
Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." 
Throughout  the  chapter,  the  apostle  presents  the  condi- 
tion of  mankind  while  in  the  flesh,  in  contrast  with  what 
their  condition  will  be  in  the  resurrection  state.  In 
Adam,  the  first,  who  was  made  a  living  soul — corruption, 
dishonour,  weakness,  animal,  earthy.  In  Christ,  the 
quickening  spirit,  the  Lord  from  heaven — incorruption, 
glory,  power,  spiritual,  heavenly.  And  he  argues,  that 
as  mankind  in  Adam  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy 
even  so  in  Christ  they  shall  bear  the  image  of  the  hea  • 
venly. 


THEOLOGICAL     DISCUSSION.  185 

But  you  say,  that  to  be  raided  from  the  dead  in  an  in- 
corruptible, glorious,  and  spiritual  l)ody,  is  a  different 
matter  iVom  being  born  of  God.  Allowing  (what  is  not 
alloAved)  that  there  is  some  force  in  this  remark,  I  must 
inform  you,  that  "every  tongue  shall  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,"  which  no  one  can  do  without  believing; 
and  it  is  written,  "whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  is  honi  of  God,''''  1  John,  v.  1. 

In  noticing  the  expression,  "  but  every  man  in  his  own 
order,"  you  say,  "These  orders  will  be  entirely  differ- 
ent." I3ul  you  err  in  supposing  that  any  other  than  an 
order  of  lime  is  alluded  to — for  the  :ipostle  proceeds  to 
say,  "Chri-t  the  ^>6-MVuits ;  afterwards  ihey  that  are 
Christ's  at  his  coining.  Then  cometli  the  end,  when  he 
shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father;  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  all 
authority  and  power.  For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put 
all  enemies  under  his  feet.  The  la<t  enemy  shall  be 
destroyed,  death.  For  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his 
feet.  But  when  he  sailh,  all  things  are  put  under  him, 
it  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted,  which  did  put  all 
things  under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall  he  sub- 
dued unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  sub- 
ject [or  subdued,  for  the  original  word  is  the  same]  unto 
him  that  put  all  things  under  him.  that  Goo  may  be  all 
IN  ALL."  In  view  of  this  unequivocal  and  heart-rejoic- 
ing testimony,  how  can  you  feel  justified  in  asserting, 
that  "  all  the  natural  advantages  and  glories  that  will 
accrue  to  the  wicked  from  the  resurrection,  will  but  pre- 
pare them  for  endless  punishment  7"  Will  any  one  be 
prepared  for  endless  punishment,  after  being  subdued  un- 
to Christ  in  the  same  way  that  Christ  will  be  subdued 
or  subject  to  the  Father? 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  remarks  and  conclusion, 
we  perceive  that  Daniel  xii.  2,  and  John  v.  28,  29,  have 
no  reference  to  a  resurrection  into  an  immortal  state  of 
being.  We  agree  in  believing  that  these  passages  refer  to 
the  same  event — and  I  clearly  showed,  in  my  letter  of 
April  7,  that  the  connexion  of  the  passage  in  Daniel 
16* 


186  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

was  quoted  by  our  Saviour,  and  applied  to  the  period  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Tiie  passage  in  John  re- 
fers to  the  same  period.  It  is  true,  that  being  in  the 
graves  is  spoken  of — but  in  Ezek.  xxxvii,  the  whole  house 
of  Israel  is  represented  as  being  in  the  graces,  which 
only  signified  their  state  of  bondage  in  Babylon,  from 
which  the  Lord  promised  to  bring  them  out,  and  to  place 
them  in  their  own  land. 

The  word  resurrection  in  the  passage  in  John,  affords 
no  proof  that  the  allusion  is  to  a  rising  into  an  immortal 
state — for,  as  Dr.  Campbell  justly  observes,  "this  is 
neither  the  only,  nor  the  primitive  import,  of  the  word 
uvd'^aaii.  It  denotes  simplv,  being  raised  from  inactivity 
to  action,  or  from  obscurity  to  eminence,  or  a  return  to 
such  a  state,  after  an  interruption."  Note  in  Matt.  xxii. 
23.  I  do  not  feel  required  to  explain  either  of  the  passa- 
ges in  question,  until  you  attempt  to  prove  that  they 
refer  to  the  immortal  state  of  existence. 

You  say  that  the  Pharisees  believed  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  all  mankind ;  and  this  is  the  predicate  of  your 
argument  on  Acts  xxiv.  15.  But  you  err  in  the  premises, 
and  your  argument  falls  to  the  ground.  The  only  resur- 
rection acknowledged  by  the  Pharisees  was,  as  Prideaux 
calls  it,  "  a  Pythagorean  resurrection,  that  is,  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  soul  onlij,  by  its  transmigration  into  another 
body ;"  and  even  this  resurrection,  or  transmigration, 
was  by  them  confined  to  such  as  they  denominated  the 
just — and  these  were  chiefly  Hebrews.  Joscphus  says, 
that  "  the  souls  of  good  men  only  are  removed  into  other 
bodies."  Thus  tar,  and  no  farther,  the  Pharisees  allow- 
-ed  a  hope  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead — but  Paul 
hoped  for  the  resurrection  hotfi  of  the  just  and  of  the 
unjust.  It  was  with  him  a  matter  of  rejoicing — of  de- 
sire, of  faith,  and  consequently  of  hope.  He  neither 
desired  nor  believed  that  any  man  woukl  be  raised  in  an 
unjust,  inglorious,  corrupt  character.  He  did  not  desire 
it — for  lie  was  a  benevolent  man  ;  and  he  did  not  believe 
it,  for  he  was  a  Christian.  As  a  Christian  disciple,  he 
i)elieved  that  "  in  the  resurrection  they  are  as  the  angels 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  187 

of  God  in  heaven;"  and  as  a  Christian  apostle,  he 
declared  that  all  shall  be  made  alive  in  the  ima^^e  of  the 
heavenly.  ^ 

It  IS  true  that  Jesus  wept  over  Jerusalem,  yet  Jerusa- 
lem was  destroyed.  And  from  the  fact,  that  in  weeping 
over  It  he  spake  only  of  temporal  calamities  comino-  upoa 
the  devoted  city,  Luke  xix,  41—44,  I  infer  two'unan- 
swerable  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment. 
1st.  Men  of  wisdom  do  not  overlook  the  major  calamity 
and  deplore  the  less.  Consult  the  passa:je  above  cited, 
and  Luke  xxiii.  27—30,  compared  with  Matt.  xxiv.  19, 
and  (hen  say,  whether,  if  Jesus  had  believed  in  endless 
punishment,  he  would  have  so  wept  over  temporal  mis- 
ery without  once  hinting  at  the  doctrine  of  interminable 
wo!  2d.  Of  Jesus  it  is  said,  he  "is  the  same  to  day, 
yesterday,  and  for  ever."  Think  you  that  he  who  wept 
over  the  temporal  wretchedness  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  could  behold  the  undying  agonies  of  millions 
of  our  race,  without  shedding  tears  of  blood? 

But  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  not  an  ultimate 
evil,  as  endless  misery  would  undoubtedly  be— and  con- 
sequently, the  comparison  you  introduce  is  not  allowable, 
and  the  illustration,  as  such,  is  sophistical. 

I  have  not  denied  the  existence  of  super-human  beings, 
termed  angels.  But  I  have  denied,  and  you  have  not 
proved,  that  such  beings  are  referred  to  in  the  passa^^es 
quoted  from  Peter  and  Jude.  ° 

After  citing  Luke  xx.  34—36,  you  say  that,  but  for  the 
expression,  "they  which  shall  be  accounted  worthy,' 
this  text  would  render  you  a  Universalist.  In  this  stale 
of  the  case,  I  i^ci  encouraged  to  hope  that  I  shall  yet 
succeed  in  convincing  you  of  the  truth  of  Universalism. 
At  least  I  am  satisfied  that  (provided  vou  do  not  consent 
to  leave  this  matter,  as  you  have  left  many  others,  en- 
tirely to  the  judgment  of  our  readers,)  I  shall  succeed  in 
proving  that  you  cannot  consistently  believe  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment. 

You  will  discover,  on  a  re-perusal  of  the  conversation 
between  our  Saviour  and  the  Sadducees,  that  the  latter 


^98  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

only  desired  to  know  whose  wife  the  woman  should  be 
in  the  resurrection.  Their  question  did  not  call  for  in- 
formation as  to  the  number  which  should  be  raised  from 
the  dead.  The  answer  of  Jesus  certified  tliem^  and  cer- 
tifies us,  that  all  who  shall  be  raised  shall  be  as  the 
angels  of  God  in  heaven.  If  you  confine  the  resurrec- 
tion, as  did  the  Pharisees,  to  a  pan  of  mankind,  you 
must  yield  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  unless 
you  can  prove  that  doctrine  without  first  admitting  a 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  But  as  you  allow  that  all 
shall  be  made  alire  in  Christ,  I  do  not  believe  you  can 
consistently  deny  that  in  the  resurrection  all  inankind 
shall  be  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven. 

In  speaking  of  those  who  shall  be  accounted  worthy 
to  obtain  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  Jesus  did  not 
intend  to  countenance  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees,  viz. 
that  only  a  part  of  our  race  shall  ever  be  raised  ;  neither 
did  he  deem  it  necessary,  in  answering  a  question  which 
pertained  only  to  the  condition  of  men  in  the  resurrec- 
tion, to  say  how  many  would  be  raised.  He  simply  taught 
the  general  truth,  that  all  who  shall  be  raised,  shall,  in 
the  resurrection,  be  equal  unto  the  angels,  being  thus 
introduced  into  "the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of 
God."  In  the  Christian  economy,  all  who  have  borne 
the  image  of  the  earthy  and  have  died  in  Adam,  are 
considered  worthy  of  being  made  alive  in  Christ,  in  the 
image  of  the  heavenly. 

2  Cor.  V.  10,  was  noticed  in  my  letter  of  April  7,  and 
I  shall  not  feel  required  to  notice  it  again,  until  you  at- 
tempt to  answer  the  reasoning  already  offered  there^ 
upon. 

Among  several  passages  which  have  no  bearing  on. 
the  question  in  debate,  you  cite  the  language  of  Christ, 
to  the  Jews — "  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might 
have  life."  The  same  exalted  personage  said,  "  And  I, 
if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  to 
me."  It  remains  to  be  proved  that  the  temporary  unwil- 
lingness of  man  shall  finally  defeat  the  purpose  of  the 
will  of  Christ. 


THEOLOGICAL  IISCUSSION.  189 

All  that  you  say  in  relation  to  the  forgiveness  or  re- 
mission of  punishment,  is  out  of  place.  I  cannot  be 
diverted  fmm  tlie  question  in  debate.  If  you  can  cite 
any  law  of  God  with  the  penalty  of  endless  punishment 
annexed,  you  will  have  proved  your  point.  I  may  add, 
however,  for  your  information,  that  the  only  Divine  for- 
giveness in  which  I  believe,  is  ih.^  forgiveness  0/ six. 

In  proof  of  endless  punishment  you  quote  the  declara- 
tions of  Jesus  touching  ihe  sin  of  blasphemy,  which,  in 
your  judgment,  is  the  sin  unto  death.  But  you  assume 
all  the  points  on  which  the  supposed  relevancy  of  this 
testimony  rests.  You  assume  that  a/wvioj  K^ian,  aionion 
condemnation,  necessarily  belongs  to  the  future  state. 
The  aionion  priesthood  of  Aaron,  the  aionion  covenant 
of  the  law,  and  other  aionion  things  mentioned  in  the 
Bible,  appertained  not  to  the  incorruptible  life.  It  is 
therefore  plain,  that  the  simple  connexion  of  aionion 
with  condemnation  does  not  establish  your  theory  of 
endless  punishment. 

But  perhaps  you  will  urge  the  declaration,  "  neither 
in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come."  But  you 
assume  that  the  meaning  of  this  expression  is,  "neither 
in  this  present  life,  neither  in  the  immortal  life  to  come." 
Such  is  not  the  import  of  the  declaration.  Olam  ha  ho, 
the  world  to  come,  is  a  constant  phrase  among  the  Jewish 
writers  for  the  times  of  the  Messiah.  Pearce  says — 
"  Neither  in  this  icorld,  &c.  Rather,  neither  in  this  age, 
nor  in  the  age  to  come  ;  i.  e.  neither  in  this  age,  when 
the  law  of  Moses  subsists,  nor  in  that  also,  when  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  which  is  at  hand,  shall  succeed  to 
it."  To  the  same  import,  see  Whitby,  Adam  Clarke, 
Wakefield,  &c. 

You  assume  that  "  the  sin  unto  death,"  is  a  sin  unto 
endless  death.  You  have  furnished  no  proof  of  this  po- 
sition.— HoRNE,  Whitby,  Rosexmuller,  Clarke,  and 
others,  unite  in  considering  the  expression  applicable 
only  to  the  death  of  the  body. 

I  might  add  other  remarks — but  those  already  offered 
are  deemed  sufficient  to  show,  that  you  were  not  justi- 


190  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

fied  in  saying, ''  Of  course,  I  consider  it  as  settled,  by 
Christ  himself,  that  every  blaspheraer  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  will  he  a  subject  u{  endless  punishment." 

Gill,  Campbell,  "VVhiiby,  and  others,  stale  that  the 
phrase  "'kingdom  of  God."  in  Maik  x,  15,  refers  not  to 
the  future  state,  but  to  the  gosj-el  kingdom  on  earth. 

I  have  shown,  in  previous  letters,  that  the  question, 
"  Avhat  is  a  man  profited  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and 
lose  his  own  soul?"  alludes  only  to  natural  life.  The 
"woxd  i^vxr]  is  thus  twice  translated  in  the  preceding  verse. 
Clarke  says,  "  I  am  certain  it  means  life  in  both  cases." 
To  the  same  import,  Pearce  and  Wakefield. 

I  have  also  shown  in  previous  letters,  that  verses  27, 
and  28  of  Matt,  xvi,  refer  to  one  and  the  same  coming. 
There  is  no  plausibility  in  the  suppo^ition  that  verse  27 
refers  to  a  yet  future  event,  since  it  is  acknowledged  that 
verse  28  alludes  to  the  coming  of  Christ  "  immediately 
after"  the  tribulation  which  came  on  Jerusalem,  Matt, 
xx'iv.  30.  The  simple  reading  of  the  verses  in  connex- 
ion will  evince  the  fallacy  ol  supposing  a  transition  of 
reference.  See  Adam  Clarke.  Cappe,  Rosenmuller,  &c. 

Tiius  have  I  endeavoured  fairly  to  nieet,  and  candidly 
to  examine,  every  argument  presented  in  your  long  yet 
friendly  epistle.  In  so  doing,  this  letter  has  been  made 
to  occupy  more  space  than  was  contemplated  in  your 
original  proposal  for  a  written  discussion.  It  matters 
little,  in  my  judgment,  how  much  either  of  us  may  wnito 
in  any  one  communication,  provided  it  be  in  defence  of 
particular  positions  previously  stated,  or  in  refutation  of 
particular  arguments  previously  advanced — but  I  deem  it 
inexpedient  to  introduce  iiew  topics  of  discourse,  how- 
ever much  bearing  they  may  have  on  the  general  issue, 
if  by  so  doing  any  ietier  be  jjrolracted  to  an  unreasonable 
length.  If  the  Lord  will,  we  shall  have  time  enough 
fully  to  discuss  the  question  in  debate  without  confusing 
the  minds  of  our  readers. 

Rejoicing '"with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory," 
in  "  the  I'aith  once  delivered  to  the  saints;"  realizing 
Xhatiu  ray  heart  dwelletli  the  Cu.mfukter,  even  the  Spirit 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  191 

of  Truth,  whom  the  world  cannot  yet  receive  because 
of  the  blinclne>;s  of  tiieir  minds  ;  desirin<T  that  this  epis- 
tle may  be  so  blessed  as  to  bring  many  tuthc  knowledge 
of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus;  and  firmly  believing  that 
you.  and  I,  and  the  whole  world  of  mankind,  shall  yet 
rejoice  toq-ether  in  the  salvation  of  the  Lord,  I  subscribe 
myself  aiiectionately  yours,  &c. 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadel 

Dear  Sir — When  I  have  once  denied  a  proposition,  it 
is  an  unwarranted  assumption  for  any  one  to  assume 
that  I  have  yielded  the  point,  because  I  wholly  nesflect 
"to  adduce  any  thing  I'urlher  in  denial."  As  much  as 
possible  1  would  avoid  going  over  the  same  ground  with 
you  twice  in  argument;  and  after  we  have  each  exhibit- 
ed our  views,  illustrations,  and  arguments  on  any  matter 
in  debate,  I  am  contented  to  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of 
our  readers.  You  ''may  feel  at  liberty  to  assume"  also, 
that  I  concede  the  correctness  of  your  conclusion^  that 
everlasting  (aion)  does  not  mean  primarily  and  radically 
an  interminable  duration ;  but  I  protest  once  for  all  against 
any  such  assumed  concessions. 

The  question  in  Luke  xiii.  23,  "  Are  there  few  that  be 
saved  V  certainly  does  not  prove  that  the  whole  number 
of  the  human  family  saved  at  last  will  be  few;  but  it 
implies,  that  some  doubt  existed  on  the  minds  of  those 
who  proposed  it  to  our  Saviour,  or  that  they  desired  his 
opinion  on  an  unsettled  point  in  their  religious  belief. 
You  deny  that  "  the  querist  had  in  view  the  salvation  of 
the  immortal  state  of  being."  To  what  salvation,  then, 
except  the  endless  salvation  from  sin  and  misery,  did  he 
refer  ?  Did  he  ask,  are  there  few  Jews  who  will  be 
saved  from  being  cast  out  of  the  church  on  earth  ?  Christ's 
answer  forbids  such  a  supposition;  for  he  replied,  "  Strive 


192  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

to  enter  ia  at  the  strait  (i.e.  difBcult)  gate;  for  many, 
I  sav  unto  you,  will  seek  to  enter  in  and  shall  not  be 
able." 

Here  they  were  required  to  strive  to  enter,  and  not  to 
avoid  being  cast  out.  Salvation  always  implies  a  de- 
liver a7ice  from,  something ;  and  if  the  question,  Are 
there  few  that  be  saved  '?  referred  to  the  Gentiles,  we 
ask  again,  from  what  were  they  to  be  saved  ?  Are  there 
few  that  be  saved  from  Gentilism?  If  this  was  the 
question,  the  answer  of  Christ,  "  Strive  to  enter  in,"  &c, 
would  be  irrelevant,  for  he  was  not  speaking  to  Gentiles, 
but  to  Jews  in  one  of  their  synagogues,  and  to  people 
in  the  Church  of  God,  who  could  say,  We  have  eaten 
and  drunk  in  thy  presence,  and  thou  hast  taught  in  our 
streets.  These  persons  he  exhorted  to  strive  to  enter  in 
at  the  strait  gate,  in  reply  to  a  question  about  the  num- 
ber of  persons  who  should  be  saved,  evidently  from 
"  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord ;" 
because  he  foreknew,  as  he  foretold,  that  When  once  the 
Master  of  the  house  had  shut  to  the  door,  many  of  them 
icill  begin  to  knock,  saying,  Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us  ;  to 
achomhe  will  say,  "  Depart  from  me,  all  ye  workers  of 
iniquity."  To  be  rejected  by  Christ  for  being  workers 
of  iniquity,  I  regard  as  endless  punishment;  unless  it 
can  be  proved  from  Scripture  that  there  will  be  a  restora- 
tion of  sinners  to  Christ  after  the  door  of  mercy  has 
been  shut  ^o  against  them,  and  they  have  been  appointed 
to  receive  their  portion  with  hypocrites  and  unbelievers 
for  ever. 

"  The  last  enemy"  of  man  in  the  present  world,  is 
death,  and  death  shall  in  relation  to  every  man  be  des- 
troyed, by  his  being  raised  from  the  dead  by  Jesus  Christ. 
It  is  not  necessary  therefore,  to  suppose  that  there  is  a 
later  enemy  than  the  last  experienced  in  this  life  :  but 
there  is  a  death  after  natural  death,  and  in  the  life  to 
come  an  endless  enemy,  that  succeeds  the  last  enemy 
which  can  assail  us.  I  shall  in  my  next  proceed  to  sup- 
port this  doctrine,  without  replying  to  your  last  letter 
any  further ;  because  that  is  but  a  reply  to  ray  preceding 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  193 

letter,  and  there  must  be  an  end  somewhere  to  our  con- 
troversy. 

In  this  discussion  I  have  intentionally  had  little  to  do 
with  commentators,  and  decline  any  attempt  to  liarmon- 
ize  them,  or  derive  a  system  from  their  opinions,  because 
1  deem  the  Bible  to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  judge  that  eacii  of  our  readers  wil! 
form  his  own  conclusions  from  his  own  understanding" 
of  the  sacred  volume. 

If  you  choose  to  abound  in  citations  from  Lardner, 
Gilpin,  Whitby,  Campbell  and  Locke,  or  even  from 
much  better  commentators,  such  as  Henry,  Patrick, 
Scott,  Doddridge,  and  M'Knight,  I  cannot  object;  and 
those  who  please  may  weigh  their  arguments  and  criti- 
cisms: but  common  people  must  certainly  be  able  to 
gather  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion 
from  the  common  translation  of  the  Bible,  or  else  that 
translation  should  be  repudiated  as  no  longer  the  rule  of 
our  faith.  I  do  not  deny  that  learned  criticism  may  help 
the  learned  to  confirm  those  doctrines  which  are  funda- 
mental, and  which  are  so  plainly  written  on  the  sacred 
page  that  he  who  runs  may  read  ;  but  any  doctrines  that 
no  reader  of  the  English  translation  of  the  Bible,  or  of 
the  Greek  and  Hebrew  original,  would  ever  think  of  find- 
ing there  until  he  should  be  drilled  into  minute  criticism, 
I  hold  to  be  no  important  doctrines  of  revelation,  even  if 
they  are  contained  therein,  or  may  be  logically  inferred 
from  the  Bible.  The  doctrines  which  my  correspondent 
teaches  appear  to  me  to  be  of  this  description.  If  the 
doctrines  which  I  defend  concerning  future  punishment 
are  not  plainly  obvious,  and  even  frequently  inculcated 
in  the  Bible,  I  should  expect  every  one  to  reject  them, 
because  all  the  good  and  all  the  bad  would  very  cheer- 
fully receive  the  tenet  of  universal  salvation,  were  it 
written  in  the  book  of  God.  If  I  add  more,  I  shall  be 
obliged  to  defer  this  letter  for  another  week. 
Yours  respectfullv. 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

17 


194  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  December  27,  1834. 
Dear  Sir — It  is  certainly  true,  that  "  there  must  be  an 
end  somewhere  to  our  controversy" — but  should  we  pro- 
ceed as  you  practically  propose,  we  shall  close  our  cor- 
respondence without  Jimshing  our  discussion.  In  de- 
clining to  answer  the  arguments  presented  in  my  last 
letter,  and  in  desiring  to  leave  what  w^e  have  already 
written  "  to  the  judgment  of  our  readers,"  you  virtually 
define  our  controversy  to  be  simply  the  written  expression 
of  our  several  opinions  ;  and  our  letters,  in  this  view  of 
the  matter,  should  be  considered  as  only  so  many  essays 
on  controverted  theological  points.  My  idea  of  a  con- 
troversy embraces  the  free  examination  of  opponent 
positions  and  arguments — the  patient  discussion  of  doc- 
trines, and  not  merely  the  expression  of  opinions.  You 
say,  indeed,  "  As  much  as  possible  I  w^ould  avoid  going 
over  the  same  ground  with  you  twice  in  argument" — and 
with  this  I  find  no  fault.  But  the  greater  part  of  my 
last  letter  you  have  not  yet  touched.  I  have  therein 
presented  many  arguments  and  much  reasoning,  to  which 
I  really  attach  some  importance.  You  stated  that  but 
for  the  expression,  "  they  which  shall  be  accounted  wor- 
thy," the  testimony  of  Jesus  in  Luke  xx,  would  make 
you  a  Universalist.  I  penned  my  remarks  on  this  passage 
with  special  reference  to  such  desirable  result ;  and  I  flat- 
tered myself  that  you  would  either  attempt  a  refutation  of 
my  reasoning  on  that  point,  or  acknowledge  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  you  had  previously  opposed.  The  issue  of 
our  conjoint  question  rests  entirely  on  the  scriptural 
representations  of  the  resurrection  state  ;  and  I  respect- 
fully desire  to  direct  your  especial  attention  to  my  proofs 
and  observations  on  this  particular  subject  as  contained 
in  my  last  letter.  I  have  therein  attempted  to  refute  all 
your  arguments  on  1  Cor.  xv  ;  and  except  you  endeavour 
to  show  that  I  have  failed  in  the  attempt,  our  controversy, 
as  before  hinted,  is  virtually  resolved  into  nothing  more 
than  the  written  expression  of  opponent  opinions* 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  195 

In  citing  passages  from  the  works  of  eminent  commen- 
tators and  critics,  I  have  only  intended  to  show,  that 
many  men  of  the  greatest  erudition,  talents,  and  piety, 
understood  a  multitude  of  scriptural  passages  very  differ- 
ently from  your  interpretation  of  them,  although  they  as 
firmly  believed  in  endless  punishment  as  do  the  Cal- 
vinistic  or  Arminian  clergymen  of  the  present  age.  The 
latter  quote  innumerable  passages  in  proof  of  endless 
wretchedness,  which  the  former  could  not,  and  did  not, 
so  apply.  I  go  for  the  Bible,  and  I  believe  the  Bible  to 
be  the  best  interpreter  of  its  own  meaning.  Nevertheless 
I  shall  continue,  as  suitable  opportunity  presents,  to  ex- 
tract occasional  passas^es  from  eminent  commentators 
and  critics  who  believed  in  endless  punishment,  and  our 
readers  will  yield  to  such  testimony  no  more  attention 
than  such  testimony  deserves  to  receive.  I  may  add 
that  your  exposition  of  any  Scripture  text,  is  not  by  me 
considered  of  any  more  weight  than  the  exposition  of 
HoR.NE,  LARDNEa,  Whitby,  or  Clark.  I  dcsirc  you  to 
remember,  that  1  have  not  quoted  Ballou,  Balfour,  or 
Whittemore,  in  confirmation  of  any  of  my  views.  These 
are  Universalists,  and  their  expositions  of  Scripture 
might  be  rejected  on  that  account ;  but  I  have  quoted  the 
testimony  of  men  who  were  sound  in  the  faith  of  endless 
punishment.  Whether  such  testimony  has  any  weight, 
and  if  any,  how  much,  our  readers  will  judge. 

I  have  said,  that  I  believe  the  Bible  to  be  its  own  best 
interpreter.  By  this  standard  I  have  endeavoured  to  test 
the  word  everlasting,  and  thus  explain  the  duration  it 
signifies.  I  have  stated,  that  the  Bible  applies  it  to  the 
priesthood  of  Aaron,  to  the  covenant  of  the  law,  to  the 
possession  of  Canaan  by  the  Israelites,  and  to  other 
things,  which  were  not  only  temporary  in  their  character, 
but  had  no  reference  whatever  to  the  future  state. 
Whether  the  fact  that  you  declined  noticing  these  and 
similar  remarks,  did  or  did  not  justify  me  in  assuming 
that  you  granted  the  conclusions  consequent  of  the  argu- 
ment, it  becomes  not  me  to  decide.  I  submit  to  the 
judgment  of  impartial  men. 


1^  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 


In  your  letter  of  July  25,  you  denied  that  Matt.  xxiv. 
36—41,  and  Luke  xvli.  20—37,  are  parallel  passages, 
because  in  the  former  case  Jesus  was  addressing  his 
disciples,  and  in  the  latter  the  Jews.  In  my  reply,  I 
showed,  from  the  express  and  positive  language  of  the 
passages,  that  Jesus  was  addressing  his  disciples  in  both 
cases.  Consequently  your  argument  was  entirely  lost. 
Of  this  important  fact— important,  because  thereon  rests 
the  decision  of  the  reference  of  Matt,  xxiv  and  xxv— you 
took  not  the  slightest  notice.  In  my  last  letter,  I  assumed 
that  you  had  yielded  the  point— and  I  believe  that  every 
principle  of  fair  disputation  justified  me  in  so  doing. 
But  as  you  have  not  yielded  the  point  in  question,  I  should 
be  happy  to  see  you  attempt  to  sustain  it. 

You  still  contend  that  the  inquiry,  "Are  there  few 
that  be  saved?"  refers  to  salvation  from  endless  wo. 
But  before  you  can  properly  contend  for  such  salvation, 
vou  must  first  prove  that  endless  wo  is  a  doctrine  of  the 
Bible.  This,  indeed,  you  infer  from  the  tenor  of  the 
text  and  its  connexion— but  the  word  saved  furnishes  no 
authority  for  said  inference.  Peter  said,  "  Save  your 
selves  (not  from  endless  wo,  but)  from  this  untoward 
generation,"  Acts  ii.  40.  Jesus  said,  "  He  that  endureth 
unto  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved"— which  language, 
in  Matt.  xxiv.  13,  you  admit  refers  to  the  destruction'of 
Jerusalem.  And  he  added,  verse 22,  "Except  those  days 
(of  great  tribulation)  should  be  shortened,  there  should 
no  flesh  be  saved."  In  these  cases,  you  agree  that  the 
word  saved  refers  to  salvation  from '  temporal  calamity 
only.  And  such,  also,  in  ray  judirment,  is  the  reference 
of  the  question,  "  Are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?"  There 
were  but  few  saved,  or  delivered,  from  the  great  tribula- 
tion that  came  on  Jerusalem — and  these  were  saved  by 
entering  "  into  the  strait  (i.  e.  difficult)  irate"  of  the  gospel 
kingdom  by  faith  in  Christ;  by  watching  for  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  ;  and  by  fleeing  from  the  devoted 
city  when  the  predicted  sign  of  tha"t  coming  appeared, 
Matt.  xxiv.  4—35.  When  Cestius  Gallus  came  against 
Jerusalem,  many   Christians  were  shut  up  in  it— but 


THKOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  197 

"those  days  were  shortened,"  else  "no  flesh  could  have 
been  saved."  The  sie;:e  Avas  strangely  raised,  and  "  the 
Christians  had  scarcely  lime  to  leave  the  city,  before  the 
Romans  returned  under  the  command  of  Titus,  and  never 
left  the  place  till  tiiey  had  destroyed  tlie  Temple,  razed 
the  city  to  the  ground,  and  slain  upwards  of  a  riiillion  of 
those  wretched  people,  and  put  an  end  to  their  civil  polity 
and  ecclesiastical  state."  (See  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  on 
]  Peter  iv.  IS.)  Thus  comparatively  few  were  saved, 
and  these  were  they  who  endured  unto  the  end,  as  in 
Matt.  xxiv.  13—22.  When  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  were 
closed,  and  the  city  hemmed  in  on  every  side,  by  the 
Roman  army,  the  door  of  the  gospel  kingdom  was  shut 
against  the  Jewish  nation.  And  though  some  might 
knock,  and  say,  "  We  have  eaten  and  drunk  in  thy  pres- 
ence, and  thou  hast  taught  in  our  streets,^^  (Jerusalem,) 
yet  it  was  too  late— the  day  of  judgment  had  arrived — 
and  the  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence,  brought  upon  that 
unbelieving  generation  "the  time  of  tribulation,  such  as 
was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  that  time, 
no  nor  ever  shall  6e,"  Matt.  xxiv.  21.  If  so  great  a 
tribulation  shall  never  be  again,  the  supposed  tribulations 
of  eternity  are  certainly  imaginary. 

You  again  incidentally  introduce  2  Thess.  i.  9.  I  have 
thrice  desired  you  to  come  up  to  a  full  investigation  of 
that  portion  of  sacred  Scripture ;  but  silence  is  the  only 
answer  I  have  yet  received  in  relation  thereunto.  I  am 
the  more  solicitous  to  examine  this  subject,  because  you 
have  certified  me,  that  said  passage  must  for  ever  prevent 
you  from  becoming  a  Universalist. 

Paul  in  affirming  that  "  the  last  enemy  shall  be  des- 
troyed, death,"  does  not  make  any  exception.  He  simply 
declares,  that  the  last  enemy  shall  be  destroyed,  and 
states  that  death  is  said  last  enemy.  It  is  written,  that 
Jesus  took  part  of  flesh  and  blood  that  he  might  destroy, 
not  only  death,  but  the  devil— yea.  the  Son  of  God  was 
manifested  that  he  might  destroy  the  7i-orks  of  the  devil, 
Heb.  ii.  14.  I  John  iii.  8.  In  furnishing  the  promised 
proof  that  there  is  an  enemy  later  than  the  last  men- 


198  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

tioned  by  Paul,  it  would  be  proper,  I  think,  to  keep  the 
foregoing  testimonies  in  view. 

Believing,  as  I  do,  tiiat  Universalism  is  the  plain  and 
obvious  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  I  desire  that  both  the  good 
and  the  bad  may  receive  it.  I  ask  the  good  to  receive  it, 
because  I  am  persuaded  it  would  make  them  better  and 
happier  ;  and  1  am  satisfied  that  were  it  heartily  and  sin- 
cerely embraced  by  the  bad,  it  would  induce  them  to 
"break  off  their  sins  by  righteousness,  and  their  iniqui- 
ties by  turning  to  the  Lord." 

Affectionately  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  December  31,  1834. 

Dear  Sir— The  account  which  our  Saviour  gives,  Luke 
xvi.  19 — 31,  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  is  desigried  to 
be  the  subject  of  the  present  letter.  This  account  is  not 
called  a  parable.  1  regard  it  as  being  Christ's  statement 
of  some  events  of  which  he  had  perfect  knowledge.  But 
had  the  narration  been  introduced  by  the  preface,  Jesus 
spake  unto  them  this  parable,  I  should  'say,  that  a  parable 
is  but  an  extended  similitude,  or  illustration,  designed 
not  to  introduce  fancies,  but  to  exhibit  and  enforce  truth. 

"There  was,"  really,  "  a  certain  rich  man,"  whom  Je- 
sus knew,  "  which  was  clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen, 
and  fared  sumptuously  every  day."  His  riches  are  not 
represented  as  having  been  a  crime,  or  any  thing  unde- 
sirable. He  is  not  censured  for  his  elegant  and  neat  at- 
tire ;  nor  was  it  any  offence  to  God  that  he  partook  plen- 
tifully of  the  bounties  of  Divine  Providence.  Some  have 
imagined  a  thousand  evil  things  against  this  rich  man, 
but  in  my  judgment  Christ  drew  the  most  amiable  and 
inoff'cnsive  character  of  a  mere  worlding  that  the  reality 
of  the  case  would  allow.  He  intended  to  present  the 
most  favourable  circumstances  in  which  an  ungodly  man 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  199 

could  be  placed,  and  contrast  them  with  the  most  abject 
poverty  of  a  true  Cliristian. 

"  Aiid  there  was  a  certain  beggar  named  Lazarus, 
which  was  laid  at  his  gate,  full  of  sores,  and  desiring  to 
be  fed  with  tne  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  rich  man's  ta- 
ble :  moreover  the  dogs  came  and  licked  his  sores."  Pro- 
bably Lazarus  had  inliis  own  past  experience  found  that 
it  was  well  for  him  to  seek  charitable  assistance  at  this 
rich  man's  door,  and  therefore  desired  again  to  be  laid 
there.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  rich  man  was  hard  heart- 
ed, and  refused  him  the  pittance  which  would  relieve  his 
wants.  Even  the  dogs  of  this  establishment  were  friend- 
ly to  the  beggar,  who  must  have  been  countenanced  by 
the  family ,''or  instead  of  licking  his  sores,  they  would 
probably  have  torn  him  to  pieces. 

Mark  the  contrast  between  these  two  individuals  in 
this  life  :  one  was  rich,  the  other  poor ;  one  was  well, 
the  other  sick;  one  was  clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen, 
and  the  other  in  the  rags  of  a  beggar ;  one  fared  sump- 
tuouslv,  and  the  other  presumed  to  ask  for  nothing  but 
the  crumbs  ;  one  was  sound  in  body  and  lovely  in  his  ap- 
,pearance,  while  the  other  was  loathsome  from  his  sores. 

Now  follow  these  same  individuals  out  of  this  present 
world.  "And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  beggar  died." 
^•The  rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried,"  probably  with 
pomp  and  solemnity  ;  but  whether  the  beggar  was  buried 
or  not,  has  been  left  untold.  His  body  Avas  probably  car- 
ried without  ceremony,  to  some  place  of  deposit.  Each 
of  these  individuals  was  removed  from  the  face  of  the 

But  what  became  of  their  souls?  For  "there  is  a 
spirit  in  man ;"  and  when  "  the  golden  bowl  is  broken, 
or  the  pitcher  is  broken  at  the  fountain"—"  then  shall  the 
dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was :  and  the  spirit  shall  re- 
turn unto  God  who  gave  it."  The  Saviour  proceeds 
to  inform  us  what  became  of  their  spirits  or  souls ;  of 
that  part  in  these  human  beings  which  we  call  themselves. 
They  both  had  a  conscious  existence  immediately  after 
death.    That  in  them  which  thought,  remembered,  rea- 


SOO  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

soned,  desired,  and  felt  either  pleasure  or  pain,  had  a  con- 
linuous  duration;  but  leaving  their  bodies,  tliey  found 
themselves  in  Avidely  different  circumstances  in  the  world 
of  departed  spirits.  Both  were  in  the  state  of  the  dead  ; 
both  knew  Avhence  they  had  come,  and  whom  they  had 
left  behind  them  on  earth.  One  of  them  was  in  a  state 
of  misery,  in  which  he  was  surprised  to  find  himself;  in 
which  he  experienced  fruitless  desire,  disappointment  and 
despair.  ''  The  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  an- 
gels into  Abraham's  iDosom  ;"  into  a  holy,  happy  society, 
in  which  he  enjoyed  the  friendship,  confidence,  and  love 
of  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful :  for  Abraham's  bo- 
som ii  but  an  emblem  of  all  these  social  benefits. 

"  The  rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried  ;  and  in  hell," 
in  the  state  of  the  dead,  or  world  of  departed  spirits,  "  he 
lifted  up  his  eyes,"  just  as  a  man  in  his  dreams  may  be 
said  to  do,  thereby  denoting  his  surprise,  "  being  in  tor- 
ments, and  seeth  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his 
bosom."  They  were  both  so  situated  in  the  state  of  de- 
parted spirits,  that  they  could  recognise  each  other  still, 
as  well  as  they  once  did  on  earth  :  and  the  rich  man  knew 
that  Lazarus  was  a  companion  of  his  patriarchial  ances- 
tor Abraham.  In  this  state  the  rich  man,  surprised  to 
find  himself  lost,  had  not  ceased  to  experience  natural 
affection  for  himself  and  his  kindred.  He  desired  deliver- 
ance from  his  misery,  and  as  some  religionists  do  on 
earth,  instead  of  immediately  calling  on  God,  he  began 
to  pray  to  one  of  the  saints."  "  And  he  cried  and  said, 
Father  Abraham,  have  mercy  on  me,  and  send  Lazarus, 
•that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water,  and  cool 
"my  tongue :  for  I  am  tormented  in  this  flame." 

It  was  necessary  for  the  Saviour,  if  he  described  the 
torments  of  the  lost  spirit  at  all,  so  that  men  could  un- 
derstand him,  to  use  similitudes.  He  symbolizes,  there- 
fore, the  torments  of  the  damned,  by  comparing  them  to 
pains  produced  by  intense  and  unquenchable  fires.  He 
preseai.^  ilie  rich  man  as  desiring  the  least  relief  of  which 
we  can  conceive  under  the  parching  thirst  which  he  ex- 
perienced.    He  asked  but  the  cooling  of  his  tongue  by 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  201 

means  of  the  moistened  finger  of  one  of  his  former  ac- 
quaintances. To  show  that  the  lost  sinner  is  witliout 
any  prospect  of  relief,  the  Saviour  proceeds  in  his  narra- 
tive to  say,  ''  But  Abraham  said,  Son,  remember  that 
thou  in  thy  lifetime  rcccivedst  thy  good  things,  and  like- 
wise Lazarus  evil  things  :  but  now  he  is  comforted  and 
thou  art  tormented."  Here  Christ  presents  a  contrast 
between  the  rich  man  in  this  life,  and  after  this  life.  He 
tells  us  how  ditferent  were  the  portions  allotted  to  these 
persons  after  they  were  dead,  from  the  portions  which 
they  experienced  while  they  Avere  alive  on  earth.  In  his 
lifetime  on  earth  the  rich  man  had  good,  and  Lazarus 
evil  things  :  but  now,  beyond  the  present  life,  Lazarus 
was  comforted,  and  the  rich  man  was  tormented. 

To  show  that  none  who  die  unprepared  to  pass  to  the 
society  of  Abraham,  can  after  death  exchange  their  mis- 
erable for  an  improved  state,  it  is  added,  "  besides  all  this, 
between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed  ;  so  that 
they  which  would  pass  from  us  to  you  cannot :  neither 
can  they  pass  to  us,  that  would  come  from  thence." 
Here  the  purpose  of  God  in  the  future  condition  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked,  of  those  who  go  to  Abraham's 
bosom  and  of  those  who  awake  in  torments,  is  denoted 
by  an  impassable  gulf  situated  between  two  places.  As 
men  on  one  location  would  for  ever  be  separated  from 
men  on  an  opposite  location  by  an  impassable,  bottomless 
abyss,  so  they  who  pass  from  earth  to  the  torments  of  the 
world  of  spirits  are  for  ever  separated  from  the  state  and 
happiness  of  the  blessed.  I  know  not  how  the  Saviour 
could  have  taught  the  future,  endless  punishment  of  some, 
who  will  die  without  true  piety,  in  clearer,  plainer, 
stronger  terms. 

To  represent  the  lost  in  a  state  of  future  misery,  as 
being  still  possessed  of  human  nature,  memory  and  sym- 
pathy, whose  natural  affections,  lawful  as  they  are,  and 
even  commendable,  Avill  still  afford  no  relief  to  their  mis- 
ery, we  have  a  further  dialogue  between  Abraham  and 
♦he  rich  man. 

"  Then  he  said,  I  pray  thee,  therefore,  father,  that  thou 


202  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

wouldst  send  him  to  my  father's  house :  for  I  have  five 
brethren;  that  he  may  testify  mito  them,  lest  they  also 
come  into  this  place  of  torment."  Here  we  learn  that 
there  is  a  place  of  toi~ment  for  some  human  beings  after 
they  have  died.  This  place  of  punishment,  and  the  state 
of  endless  misery,  we  call  hell ;  using  the  word  to  denote 
not  merely  "  the  hell,"  or  state  of  the  dead  to  which 
Christ's  spirit  departed,  when  he  expired  on  the  cross,  but 
that  hell  or  tophet^  or  tartarus,  or  prison  of  despair,  foi 
which  Christ  selected  the  names  of  the  valley  of  Gehin- 
nom,  gehenna,  and  hell  fire,  as  suitable  emblems. 

"  And  Abraham  said  unto  him.  They  have  Moses  and 
the  prophets ;  let  them  hear  them." 

Deceiving  himself,  as  sinners  on  earth  have  always 
done,  the  lost  rich  man  replied,  "  Nay,  father  Abra- 
ham ;  but  if  one  went  unto  them  from  the  dead  they  will 
repent." 

And  Abraham  said  unto  him,  "  If  they  hear  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though 
one  rose  from  the  dead." 

In  this  representation  of  the  world  of  saved  and  of  lost 
spirits  there  is  nothing  unreasonable ;  and  in  our  inter- 
pretation of  it  nothing  strained.  We  think  every  candid 
reader  would  naturally  come  to  the  same  conclusions  that 
all  orthodox  Christians  have  ever  done. 

To  make  the  passage  appear  to  teach  any  other  doc- 
trine has  ever  required  all  the  ingenuity  of  the  Univer- 
salists,  and  will  doubtless  engage  one  of  the  most  active 
and  bold  of  their  society  in  the  present  day.  I  refer  to 
my  correspondent,  whose  talents  I  respect,  and  who  in 
perverting  Scripture  by  Scripture,  seems  to  me  to  have 
no  superior  on  earth. 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  20? 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  Jan.  3,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — The  perusal  of  your  exposition  of  Luke  xvi. 
19 — 31,  has  afforded  me  not  a  little  pleasure.  Heretofore 
you  have  frequently  simply  cited  a  passage  of  Scripture, 
depending  on  the  prepossessions  of  our  readers  for  the 
acknowledgment  of  its  relevancy  to  the  point  in  debate  ; 
but  in  reference  to  the  account  of  the  rich  man  and  Laza- 
rus, you  have,  in  the  main,  pursued  a  different  (and  I  will 
add,  a  commendable)  course.  You  have  attempted  to 
show  that  said  account  is  properly  considered  descriptive 
of  the  condition  of  men  in  a  future  state;  and  in  endea- 
vouring to  establish  this  position,  you  have  taken  a  toler- 
ably comprehensive  survey  of  the  whole  subject.  This 
is  right.  It  is  precisely  what  I  have  repeatedly  desired 
you  to  do  with  many  passages  by  you  introduced  into  this 
discussion  ;  and  I  hope  that  you  will  continue  practically 
to  acknowledge  the  propriety  of  the  course  adverted  to. 

The  conclusions  to  which  you  have  arrived  bear  the 
semblance  of  Just  deduction.  It  is  generally  true,  that 
"he  who  is  first  in  his  own  cause  seemeth  just ;"  yet  it 
is  equally  true,  that  when  "  his  neighbour  cometh  after 
and  searcheth  him,"  a  different  aspect  may  be  given  to 
the  whole  matter.  In  attending  to  this  subject  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  search  many  of  your  statements,  with 
special  reference  to  the  general  issue;  and  also  to  bring 
to  light  a  number  of  important  considerations  w^hich  you 
have  entirely  overlooked. 

First  of  all,  I  will  mention  a  few  particulars,  which  I 
desire  you  to  consider  as  so  many  preliminary  objections 
to  your  exposition. 

1st.  You  cite  the  testimony  of  Solomon,  that  when  a  man 
dies,  "  the  dust  shall  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and 
the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it."  This  is 
pure  Unirersalism.  Allow  me  to  inquire,  whether  the 
spirit  of  the  rich  man  returned  unto  God  who  gave  it,  when 
it  was  sent  into  an  endless  hell  ? 


804  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

2d.  In  your  letter  of  May  15,  1S34,  you  distinctly  state 
that  hades^  hell,  is  to  be  destroyed.  You  affirm,  indeed, 
that  in  hades  there  is  a  paradise  and  a  gehenna  of  fire ; 
but  it  matters  not  how  many  apartments  you  may  sup- 
pose it  to  contain — for  hades  is  to  be  destroyed,  however 
numerous  its  divisions  may  be.  This  you  allow — and 
yet,  as  if  purposely  to  contradict  yourself,  you  contend 
for  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  on  the  ground 
that  the  rich  man  is  represented  as  being  in  hades  !  Can 
you  conceive  of  endless  punishment  in  a  place  that  is  to 
be  destroyed  ? 

3d.  Your  whole  exposition  is  predicated  of  the  suppo- 
sition, that  the  subject  matter  before  us  is  "  Christ's  state- 
ment of  some  events  of  which  he  had  a  perfect  know- 
ledge." You  consider  it  a  history,  an  account  of  literal 
facts.  Yet  you  have  interpreted  much  of  the  language 
in  a  parabolic  sense  !  You  consider  Abraham'' s  bosom  an 
emblem — and  in  so  considering  it  you  have  abandoned  the 
entire  groundwork  of  your  argument — for  if  Abraham's 
bosom  be  a  figure,  or  parabolic  representation  of  some- 
thing else,  the  same  may  be  said  of  Lazarus,  and  also  of 
the  rich  man.  If  by  Abraham's  bosom  be  not  signified  the 
literal  bosom  of  that  patriarch,  you  have  no  right  to  as-- 
sume  that  either  Lazarus  or  the  rich  man  was  a  real  per- 
sonage. If  one  part  of  the  account  be  literal,  such  also 
must  be  the  character  of  the  entire  relation.  If  one  part' 
be  emblematical,  the  ivhole  must  be  interpreted  parabolic-- 
ally.  Yet  you  have  assigned  to  the  several  portions  jusf- 
such  character,  symbolical  or  literal,  as  you  thought 
would  best  comport  with  your  general  views  of  the  sub- 
ject. I  cannot  allow  you  this  privilege.  If  either  La-- 
zarus  or  the  rich  man  was  a  real  personage,  who  diei 
a  literal  death,  then  Abraham's  bosom  was  the  literal  bo-- 
som  of  that  patriarch  ;  and  the  rich  man  was  tormented^ 
in  literal  flames  of  fire ;  and  literal  water  was  called  for; 
and  there  was  a  literal  gulf — and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter.  You  assume  that  the  torments  of  the  rich  man 
were  symbolized  "  by  comparing  them  to  pains  produced 
oy  ijitease  and  unquenchable  fires."    And  if  this  part  of 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  SOS' 

the  account  be  symbolical,  the  whole  relation  must  be  in- 
terpreted parabolically. 

4ih.  Your  exposition  of  the  subject  required  you  to 
make  many  unauthorized  assumptions.  I  shall  say  no- 
thing of  the  assumptions  that  Lazarus  was  "  a  true 
Christian,"  and  that  the  rich  man  was  "  a  rnere  world- 
ling," "  an  ungodly  man."  I  find  no  such  intimations  in 
the  record.  But  I  pass  to  notice,  1st.  You  assume  that 
Lazarus  ic as  buried.  The  text  does  not  say  so.  You  in- 
deed found  it  necessary  to  assume  this  point,  in  order  to 
make  out  your  case — but  I  shall  presently  show  that  the 
truth  of  the  matter  does  not  require,  but  rather  forbids, 
the  assumption  in  question.  We  are  simply  certified, 
that  "  the  begsrar  died,  and  was  carried  into  Abraham's 
bosom."  2d.  You  assume  that  the  subject  refers  to  the 
spirits  or  souls  of  the  two  characters  mentioned.  Nothing 
of  the  kind  is  intimated  in  any  part  of  the  account.  1 
grant  that  such  assumption  is  an  essential  item  of  your 
exposition— but  I  desire  to  receive  the  record  as  it  stands, 
being  satisfied  that  we  need  not  either  take  from,  or 
add  to,  the  testimony,  in  order  to  arrive  at  its  true  signifi- 
cation. 

Your  attention  is  now  solicited  to  a  few  considerations, 
which  shall  presently  be  more  particularly  noticed.  1st. 
Why  was  Abraham's  bosom  especially  mentioned,  if  so 
be  that  the  society  of  the  blessed  hereafter  is  signified  by 
that  expression?  Why  not  the  bosom  of  Elijah,  or 
Enoch,  or  Isaac,  or  Jacob  ?  In  my  view  of  the  subject, 
this  question  is  satisfactorily  answered,  as  I  think  my 
correspondent  will  yet  acknowledge.  2d.  Why  does  the 
rich  man  give  the  endearing  appellation  of  Father  ta 
Abraham  ?  and  why  does  the  latter  acknowledge  the  af- 
finity by  addressing  the  former  as  his  Son  ?  It  is  worthy 
of  notice,  that  the  rich  man  calls  on  no  one  but  Abraham, 
and  that  he  does  not  speak  of  Lazarus  as  his  brother.  I 
shall  account  for  these  facts  presently.  3d.  Abraham  is 
represented  as  directing  the  five  brethren  to  consult  Mo- 
ses and  the  prophets.  Does  not  this  fact  incontrovertibly 
prove  that  none  but  the  tribes  of  Israel  had  part  in  the 

18 


206  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

matter  ?  I  iccnlion  these  points  as  preliminary  in- 
quiries. They  will  lead  our  minds  into  profitable  investi- 
gation. 

We  must  now  attend  to  the  consideration  of  the  gen- 
eral character  of  the  subject.  Is  it  "  Christ's  statement 
of  some  events  of  which  he  had  perfect  knowledge?" 
that  is,  is  it  a  relation  of  literal  facts  ?  or  is  it  a  parable  ? 
If  it  be  the  former,  you  must  so  interpret  it  in  all  its  parts, 
and  I  must  yield  the  argument,  so  far  as  future  punish- 
ment is  concerned.  If,  however,  it  be  a  parable,  Laza- 
rus was  not  a  real  personage,  but  simply  the  parabolic 
representative  of  some  nation  or  people,  of  whom  his 
condition  was  a  striking  figure.  The  same  must  also  be 
true  of  the  rich  man.  Carrying  out  the  parabolical  in- 
terpretation, we  shall  discover  that  their  deaths  respective^ 
ly,  and  hades,  and  the  flame,  and  the  gulf,  and  Abraham's- 
bosom,  are  not  to  be  understood  literally,  but  only  to  be 
viewed  as  figures  of  things  which  they  symbolically  rep- 
resented. 

You  say,  ^^ this  accowit  is  not  caWed  3l parable."  True; 
— neither  is  the  account  of  the  prodigal  son  called  a  para- 
ble — nor  are  we  informed  that  Jesus  spake  parabolically 
when  he  uttered  the  language  concerning  the  lost  piece 
of  silver — nor  did  Jotham  inform  the  people  that  he  spake 
a  parable  when  he  told  of  the  time  wlien  the  trees  went 
forth  to  anoint  a  king  over  them.  Judges  ix — and  though, 
in  introducing  the  account  of  the  hundred  sheep,  the  his- 
torian says,  "  And  he  spake  this  parable  unto  them,"  yet 
we  are  not  certified  that  Jesus  called  it  a  parable.  In  in- 
troducing the  account  of  the  Pharisee  and  publican,  the 
historian  says,  "  He  spake  this  parable  unto  certain  which 
trusted  in  themselves  that  they  were  righteous  and  de- 
spised others,"  but  we  are  not  authorized  to  affirm  that 
Jesus  called  it  a  parable.  He  began  by  saying,  "  Two 
men  went  up  into  the  temple  to  pray."  Indeed,  so  com- 
mon a  thing  was  it  for  our  Lord  to  communicate  instruc- 
tion in  parables,  that  it  is  written,  "  Without  a  parable 
spake  he  not  unto  them,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which, 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  207 

was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  saying,  I  will  open  my  mouth 

in  parables,"  Matt.  xiii.  34,  35. 

That  the  subject  before  us  is  a  parable,  and  not  a  his- 
tory, is  contended  by  Lightfoot,  Whitby,  and  Hammond 
— than  whom  never  lived  stronger  advocates  of  endless 
punisliment.  But  tlie  simple  fact  that  to  interpret  the 
Avhole  account  literally,  or  as  a  history,  would  involve 
contradictory  and  absurd  results,  argues  conclusively  that 
it  is  a  parable.  I  repeat,  that  I  cannot  allow  you  to  as- 
sign to  this  part  a  historical,  and  to  that  a  symbolical 
meaning.  It  must  either  be  wholly  literal,  or  wbolly 
figurative.  It  cannot  be  partly  one,  and  partly  the  other. 
°l  agree  with  yuu  that  "  a  parable  is  but  an  extended 
similitude,  or  illustration,  designed  not  to  introduce  fan- 
cies, but  to  exhibit  and  enforce  truth."  And  the  question 
now  to  be  answered,  is,  What  truth  did  Jesus  intend  to 
exhibit  and  enforce  in  the  parable  before  us?  I  reply— he 
intended  to  illustrate  the  truth,  that  if  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  would  not  accredit  the  testimony  of  the  mira- 
cles by  him  wrought  in  attestation  of  the  divinity  of  his 
mission,  "  neither  would  they  be  persuaded,  though  one 
rose  from  the  dead." 

I  will  now  state,  that  I  consider  the  rich  man  the  para- 
bolic representative  of  the  unbelieving  Jewish  people,  es- 
pecially of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees ;  that  Lazarus  is 
the  parabolic  representative  of  the  publicans  and  sinners, 
whether  of  Jewish  or  Gentile  extraction  ;  that  by  Abra- 
ham's bosom  is  symbolized  the  gospel  kingdom  ;  and  that 
hades  is  symbolically  used,  as  in  other  parts  of  the  Bi- 
ble, to  represent  the  miseries  and  torments  experienced 
by  those  of  whom  the  rich  man  is  the  parabolic  represen- 
tative. 

You  now  have  the  outline  of  what  I  consider  the  only 
true  exposition  of  the  subject;  and  I  desire  you  to  ob- 
serve, that  I  shall  not  give  a  figurative  interpretation 
to  one  part,  and  a  literal  signification  to  another.  Viewing 
it  as  a  parable,  as  such  it  shall  be  wholly  explained. 

I  consider  the  death  spoken  of  as  being  solely  and  alone 
a  national  death.     I  beg  you  to  suspend  judgment  on  this 


208  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

Statement,  until  you  bring  to  remembrance  that  the  prodi- 
gal son  is  stated  to  liave  been  dead,  even  while  he  lived 
in  the  flesh.  "  This  ir  y  son  was  dead,  and  is  alive 
again.''  And  I  think  I  shall  be  enabled  to  show,  that 
said  prodigal  son,  and  the  lost  sheep,  and  the  lost  piece  of 
silver,  and  Lazarus,  equally  stand  as  the  parabolic  repre- 
sentatives of  the  publicans  and  sinners,  whether  of  Jew- 
ish or  Gentile  extraction. 

In  the  beginning  of  Luke  xv,  it  is  written,  "  Then  drew 
near  unto  him  all  the  publicans  and  sinners  for  to  hear  him. 
And  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  murmured,  saying.  This 
man  receiveth  sinners,  and  eaieth  with  them."  Then 
commences  our  Lord's  discourse  from  this  text  ;  and 
said  discourse,  comprising  a  series  of  pointed  parables,  is 
continued  to  the  close  of  Chap.  xvi.  Publicans  and  sin- 
ners, on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes,  on 
the  other,  composed  his  audience. 

In  the  parables  of  the  lost  sheep  and  the  lost  piece  of 
silver,  our  Saviour  sets  forth  the  unjustifiable  character 
of  Pharisaic  murmuring.  He  gives  the  murmurers  to 
understand,  that  as  the  shepherd  and  the  woman  respec- 
tively rejoiced  when  they  had  recovered  the  things  sever- 
ally lost,  so  every  one  should  rejoice  that  Messias  came  to 
save  sinners,  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost.  In 
the  parable  which  follows,  the  same  general  instruction 
is  conveyed.  The  elder  brother  is  the  representative  of 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees — the  prodiical  son  of  the  re- 
turning publicans  and  sinners.  The  character  of  the  for- 
mer is  inimitably  represented  by  the  elder  brother.  He 
murmured  because  the  prodigal  was  received  into  favour 
— "  he  was  angry,  and  would  not  go  in."  I  cannot  avoid 
remarking  incidentally,  that  he  who  says,  "  if  all  men 
are  to  go  to  heaven,  I  do  not  wish  to  go  there,"  may  be- 
hold his  image  in  the  spirit  of  the  elder  brother. 

The  parable  with  which  chapter  xvi  commences,  was 
addressed  to  the  disciples,  the  same  audience  being  pre- 
sent. Therein  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  (who  sat  in 
Moses'  seat)  are  represented  by  the  unjust  steward.  To 
them  had  been  committed  the  oracles  of  God,  and  they 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  209 

^vere  the  administrators  of  the  law  covenant.  They 
were  unfaithful  to  their  trust,  and  were  tlierefore  to  be 
discharged.  At  verse  14,  it  is  written  And  the  Phari- 
sees al<o  who  were  covetous,  heard  all  these  thinus  ;  and 
thev  derided  him."  They  felt  the  power  and  apphcatioa 
of  the  parable.  Our  Saviour  then  proceeded  to  show 
them,  that  as  thev  had  been  married  to  the  laAv,  they 
were  bound  to  be  faithful  thereunto.  "  Moses  in  the  law 
and  the  prophets  did  write"  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ;  and 
now  that  he  was  come,  they  were  under  obligations  to  re- 
ceive him  as  the  Messiah.  Continuing  to  dilate  on  the 
subject  matter  before  him,  our  Lord  introduced  the  para- 
ble of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus;  and  in  this  parable  he 
kept  his  eye  on  the  truth  he  designed  to  enforce,  namely, 
that  if  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  still  disbelieved  the  divin- 
ity of  his  mission,  "  neither  would  they  be  persuaded 
thoacrh  one  rose  from  the  dead."  A  real  Lazarus  had 
been'' raised- Jesus  himself  subsequently  rose— and  the 
truth  he  designed  to  enforce  in  the  parable  was  tuily  ve- 

^'  In  Isaiah  i.  6,  the  people  of  Israel  are  figuratively  rep- 
resented as  being  full   of  "wounds,   and  bruises,  and 
putrefying  sores."     In  the  same  sense,  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  considered  the  publicans  and  sinners  as  being 
covered  with  the   sores  of  sin.     For  this  reason  they 
murmured  that  Jesus   should  receive   sinners,  and  eat 
with  them.     Those  publicans  and  sinners  figuratively 
laid  a^  the  sate  of  the  temple,  and  desired  to  be  led  with 
the  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  rich  steward's  table.  The 
woman  of  Canaan  who  besought  our  Saviour  to  heal 
her  daughter,  was  told   that  it  was   "  not  meet  to  take 
the  children's  bread,  and  to  cast  it  to  dogs."     Her  an- 
swer was,  "  Truth,  Lord  ;  yet  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crunibs 
which  fall  from  their  master's  table,"  Matt.  xv.  2b,  27. 
I  refer  to  this  example  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
the  figurative  use  I  have  made  of  the  fact,  that  the  pub- 
licans and  sinners  desired  to  be  fed  with  the  crumbs  that 
fell  from  the  table  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  is  alto- 
gether admissible. 

IS* 


210  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

Our  Master,  in  the  parable  of  the  man  who  commanded 
his  two  sons  to  go  into  the  vineyard  to  labour,  said  to  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  "  The  publicans  and  harlots  go 
into  the  kingdom  of  God  before  you.  For  John  came 
unto  you  in  the  way  of  righteousness,  and  ye  believed 
him  not:  but  the  publicans  and  harlots  believed  him: 
and  ve,  when  ye  saw  it,  repented  not  afterward,  that  ye 
might  believe  him,"  Matt.  xxi.  31,  32.  When  the  publi- 
cans and  sinners  believed  in  Christ,  they  died  a  national 
death — that  is,  they  were  no  longer  either  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles, but  Christians.  They  died  a  national  death,  but 
THEY  WERE  NOT  BURIED — they  "  wcrc  translated  into  the 
kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son,"  Col.  i.  13,  where  "  there  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek,"  as  such  ;  "  for  ye  are  all  one 
in  Christ  Jesus,"  Gal,  iii.  28.  And  said  translation  into 
the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son,  is  signified  by  the  ex- 
pression, "  carried  into  Abraham's  bosom ;"  for  the 
apostle  adds,  "And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed.''  It  is  also  written,  ''  They  which  be  of 
faith,  ARE  blessed  with  faithfid  Abraham,"  Gal.  iii.  9. 
The  publicans  and  sinners,  in  their  lifetime  as  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  received  "  evil  things."  But  when  they  died 
the  national  death  before  mentioned,  they  entered  into 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  gospel ;  and  in  the  kingdom  of 
God's  dear  Son,  they  were  comforted  by  the  faith  of 
Abraham.  Were  I  to  imitate  your  example,  I  should 
say,  that  "  every  candid  reader  would  naturally  come  to 
the  same  conclusions,"  in  reference  to  this  subject.  But 
I  will  not  make  so  sweeping  a  declaration.  I  will  only 
say,  that  /  do  not  perceive  how  any  one  who  carefully 
examines  the  matter,  can  come  to  a  different  conclusion. 

I  stated  that,  in  my  judgment,  the  rich  man  was  the 
parabolic  representative  of  the  unbelieving  Jewish  people, 
specially  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  They  "  shut 
up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men."  They  neither 
went  in  themselves,  nor  suffered  those  who  were  entering 
to  go  in.  In  shutting  up  the  gospel  kingdom,  they  shut 
themselves  out.  And  what  was  the  consequence?  They 
entered  not  into  the  faith  of  Abraham,  and  of  course 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  211 

were  not  partakers  of  its  joys.  But  more  than  this. 
When  they  had  filled  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities 
by  crucifying  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory,  decay  seized  on 
the  vitals  of  their  civil  polity  ;  and  in  the  final  overthrow 
and  destruction  of  their  city  and  temple,  and  conse- 
quently the  abrogation  of  the  law  covenant,  they  died  a 
national,  death.  Before  Jerusalem  was  hemmed  in  on 
every  side,  they  who  had  been  translated  into  the  king- 
dom of  God's  dear  Son,  saw  the  black  thunder  cloud  of 
judgment  lowering  over  the  devoted  city — and  they 
escaped  to  the  mountains  of  Judea.  The  unbtdieving 
Jewish  people,  of  whom  the  rich  man  is  the  parabolic 
representative,  not  only  died  a  national  death,  but  they 
were  buried.  They  were  dead  and  buried  in  the  same 
figurative  sense  that  the  same  people  were  dead  and  bu- 
ried during  their  captivity  in  Babylon.  The  vision 
recorded  in  Ezekiel  xxxvii,  places  the  latter  subject  in 
its  proper  light. 

Continuing  the  parabolic  interpretation,  I  desire  to 
say,  that  the  Jew&  opened  not  their  eyes  to  behold  the 
utter  hopelessness  of  their  case,  until  their  city  was 
surrounded  and  besieged  by  the  Roman  army  under 
Titus.  Our  Saviour  had  foreseen  and  foretold  this  diffi- 
culty. He  wept  over  the  city,  and  said,  ''If  thou  hadst 
known,  even  thou,  at  least  in  this  thy  day,  the  things 
which  belong  to  thy  peace;  but  now  they  are  hid  from 
thine  eyes.  [The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  lifted  up  their 
eyes  afterwards,  and  saw  those  things — but  it  was  too 
late — they  were  in  torment.]  For  the  days  shall  come 
upon  thee  that  thine  enemies  shall  cast  a  trench  ahoiU 
thee^  and  compass  thee  round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every 
side  ;  and  shall  lay  thee  even  with  the  ground,  and  thy 
children  within  ^A^e.".Luke  xix.  41 — 44.  These  obsta- 
cles, interposed  between  the  believing  Christians  and  the 
unbelieving  Jewish  people,  in  the  destruction  of  the  city 
and  temple,  are  symbolized  by  the  great  gulf.  Hence 
Abraham  is  represented  as  saying,  *'  they  which  would 
pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot ;  neither  can  they  pass 
to  us,  that  would  come  from  thence."    Such  was  strictly 


212  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSBION. 

the  fact  at  the  period  of  the  siege  and  overthrow  of  Je- 
rusalem ;  and  a  symbolical  Sfulf  still  interposes  between 
Christians  and  Jews.  The  latter  have  ever  been  a  dis- 
tinct people  ;  and  whoever  will  consider  their  present 
condition,  will  perceive  the  existence  of  a  gulf  of  sepa- 
ration between'  the  Christian  community  and  the  house 
of  Israel. 

They  of  whom  the  rich  man  is  the  parabolic  repre- 
sentative, died  a  national  death,  and  were  hiiried  in  hell. 
Dr.  AuAM  Clarke  certifies  us  that,  in  his  old  MS.  Bible, 
the  passage  reads  thus:  "Forsothe  the  riche  man  is 
dead  ;  and  is  buried  in  helle."  This  reading  is  sup- 
ported by  several  versions — and  I  verily  believe  it  ex- 
presses the  true  signification  of  the  t€Xt.  The  unbe- 
lieving Jewish  nation  were  buried  bodily  in  the  hell  to 
which  their  city  and  temple  were  thrust  down :  the 
same  hell  mentioned  in  Luke  x.  15.  "  And  thou  Caper- 
naum, which  art  exalted  unto  heaven,  shall  be  thrust 
down  to  hell,  hades  ;  that  is,  from  a  state  of  prosperity  and 
■opulence,  that  city  was  to  be  thrust  down  to  degradation 
and  wo.  In  the  very  same  hell  the  Jewish  people  "lifted 
■up  their  eyes,  being  in  torments."  It  was  a  hell  of  fire, 
in  the  scriptural  figurative  sense  of  that  expression.  The 
Lord  declared  by  the  mouth  of  a  prophet  that  he  would 
make  Jerusalem  as  Tophet,  Jer.  xix ;  and  Isaiah  says, 
"  Tophet  is  ordained  of  old  .  .  .  the  pile  thereof  is  fire 
and  much  wood  ;  the  breath  of  the  Lord,  like  a  stream 
of  brimstone,  doth  kindle  it,"  Isa.  xxx.  33.  Where  that 
fire  was  to  be  kindled,  we  learn  from  Isa.  xxxi.  9:  "  And 
he  shall  pass  over  to  his  strong  hold  for  fear,  and  his 
princes  shall  be  afraid  of  the  ensign,  saith  the  Lord, 
achosefire  is  in  Zion,  and  his  ficrnace  in  Jerusalem.'''' 
This  furnace  of  fire  is  mentioned  in  Matt.  xiii.  42 — 50; 
in  which  passages  the  reference  is  the  same  as  in  the 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  See  also  Ezek. 
xxii.  19 — 22 :  "  I  will  gather  you  into  the  midst  of  Jeru- 
salem   and  blow  upon  you  in  the  fire  of  my  wrath, 

and  ye  shall  be  melted  in  the  midst  thereof."  In  Jeru- 
,salem,  therefore,  the  flame  of  fire  was  kindled  in  which 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  213 

they,  of  whom  the  rich  man  is  ihe  parabolic  representa- 
tive, were  to  be  tormented. 

The  fact  that  the  rich  man  is  represented  as  calling 
upon  ''  Father  Abraham ^''^  argues  conclusively  that  the 
Jews  were  the  persons  so  tormented.  Nothing  was,  or 
is,  more  characteristic  of  a  Jew,  than  the  pride  with 
which  he  speaks  of  Abraham  as  the  progenitor  of  the 
Jewish  nation.  "  JFe  have  Abraham  to  our  father,''^ 
was  an  expression  in  common  use  among  that  people. 
See  Matt.  iii.  9;  John  viii.  39.  In  the  parable  before  us, 
Abraliam  is  represented  as  acknowledging  the  relation- 
ship, in  calling  the  rich  man  "  aSo^"— for  Ihe  Jews  were 
the  lineal  descendants  of  that  patriarch,  according  to 
the  iiesh.  I  desire  you  to  notice  also,  that  Abraham 
speaks  of  "  Moses  and  the  prophets"'  as  the  testimonies 
to  which  the  five  brethren  should  attend.  The  Chris- 
tians on  the  one  hand,  and  the  house  of  Israel  on  the 
other,  are  the  only  people  who  ever  accredited  those 
writings.  Our  Saviour,  on  a  certain  occasion,  said  to 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  "  Do  not  think  that  I  will 
accuse  you  to  the  Father:  there  is  one  that  accuseth 
you.— even  Moses,  in  whom  ye  trust.  For  had  ye  be- 
lieved Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me— for  he  wrote 
of  me,"  John  v.  45—47.  How  remarkably  this  answers 
to  the   closing  part  of  the  parable  before  us!    "They 

have  Moses  and  the  prophets;  let  them  hear  them 

If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will 
they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead." 

This  language  certainly  implies  that  Moses  and  the 
prophets  had  spoken  of  the  torment  which  the  rich  man 
is  experiencing.  But  I  ask  you  to  cite  a  single  passage 
from  either  Moses  or  the  prophets,  in  which  there  is  any 
intimation  of  future  endless  punishment.  Dr.  George 
Campbell  says,  "  It  is  plain  that,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  most  profound  silence  is  observed  in  regard  to  the 
state  of  the  deceased,  their  joys  or  sorrows,  their  happi- 
ness or  misery,"  6th  Prelim.  Diss.  P.  ii.  ^19.  Dr.  Jahn 
confirms  this  statement— for  he  says,  "We  have  not 
authority  decidedly  to  say,  that  any  other  motives  were 


2i4  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

held  out  to  the  ancient  Hebrews  to  pursue  the  good  and 
avoid  the  evil,  than  those  which  were  derived  from  the 
rewards  and  piinishmenls  of  this  life,^^  Archeology, 
§314.  In  view  of  your  exposition  of  the  parable  before 
us,  I  ask,  how  could  the  five  brethren  of  the  rich  man 
learn  any  thing  from  Moses  and  the  prophets  in  relation 
to  a  place  of  endless  torment,  concernins:  which  Moses 
and  the  prophets  observe  the  most  profound  silence  ? 

But  Moses  and  the  prophets  both  speak  plainly  of  the 
torment  to  be  endured  by  those  of  whom  the  rich  man 
is  the  parabolic  representative.  I  have  already  cited 
several  passages  on  this  subject  from  Isaiah.  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel  ;  and  I  will  now  direct  your  attention  to  the 
language  of  Moses  in  Deut.  xxxii :  "  For  a  Jire  is  kin 
died  in  mine  anger,  and  shall  burn  unto  the  lowest  hell, 
(scheol,  Heb.,  hades,  Gr..)  and  shall  consume  the  earth 
with  her  increase,  and  set  on  fire  the  foundations  of  the 
mountains.  I  will  heap  mischiefs  upon  them  ;  I  will 
spend  mine  arrows  upon  them.  They  shall  be  burnt 
with  hunger,  and  devoured  with  burning  heat,  and  with 
bitter  destruction."  This  is  figurative  language — and 
such  were  the  symbolical  torments  set  forth  in  the  para- 
ble ;  and  Abraham  is  therefore  properly  represented  as 
saying,  '•  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets;  let  them 
hear  them." 

David  was  a  prophet.  He  says.  Psalm  Ixxxvi.  13: 
"  Great  is  thy  mercy  toward  me,  and  thou  hast  delivered 
my  soul  from  the  lowest  hell,''''  scheol,  hades.  He  explains 
his  meaning  in  Psalm  cxvi.  3:  "  The  sorrows  of  death 
compassed  me,  and  the.  pains  of  hell  gat  hold  on  me :  I 
found  trouble  and  sorrow."  Such  was  the  hell  in  which 
the  Jewish  nation  "  lifted  up  their  eyes,  being  in  tor- 
ments." It  was  in  Jerusalem.  There  the  fire  of  the 
Lord  was  kindled ;  and  there  they  were  "  burnt  with 
hunger,  and  devoured  with  burning  heat,  and  with  bitter 
destruction." 

No  reason  can  be  assigned  why  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
was  likened  unto  ten  virgins — nor  why  one  hundred  sheep 
is  the  number  mentioned  in  the  parable— nor  why  the 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  215 

woman  is  represented  as  having  lost  ten  pieces  of  silver- 
So  neither  can  a  perfectly  satisfactory  reason  be  assigned 
why^L'e  is  mentioned  as  the  number  of  the  rich  man's 
brethren.  In  interpreting  parables,  the  moral  is  more  to 
be  regarded  than  the  details  of  the  story. 

I  have  thus  given  an  extended  exposition  of  the  para- 
ble of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  With  "perverting 
Scripture  by  Scripture,"  I  have  nothing  to  do.  I  have 
humbly  endeavoured  to  compare  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual,  and  thus  allow  the  man  of  my  counsel,  the 
Bible,  to  be  the  interpreter  of  its  own  meaning.  If  I  am 
in  error,  there  is  no  one  more  competent  than  my  res- 
pected correspondent  to  show  me  wherein  I  have  erred, 
and  to  set  me  ria^ht.  I  can  assure  him,  that  however 
"bold  and  active"  I  may  be  in  disseminating  the  know- 
ledge of  Immanuel's  love,  I  do  no  more  than  my  duty. 
I  am  sensible  that  were  I  to  become  the  advocate  of  a 
limited  salvation.  I  should  be  honoured  of  men,  and  avoid 
multiform  reproaches  which  I  have  already  suffered,  and 
must  continue  to  cuffer.  '"But  none  of  these  things 
move  me  ;  neither  count  I  my  life  dear  unto  myself,  so- 
that  I  might  finish  my  course  with  joy,  and  the  ministry 
which  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  testify  the 
gospel  of  the  grace  of  God." 

Affectionately  yonrs, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS, 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  Jan.  7,  1835. 
Dear  Sir— Whilst  I  live,  I  confidently  expect  to  oppose 
the  erroneous  doctrine  that  all  mankind  will  in  a  future 
state  of  existence  be  perfectly  happy,  so  that  it  is  highly 
probable,  that  "  we  shall  close  our  correspondence  with- 
out finishing  our  discussion."  You  have  seen  fit  to  com- 
plain a  good  deal  about  my  mode  of  managing  my  part 
of  the  controversy  in  which  we  are  engaged  ;  but  I  have 


216 


THEOLOGICAL   DLSCUSSION. 


no  disposition  to  return  the  compliment.  I  am  content 
that  you  should  manage  your  part  of  the  discussion  ac- 
cording to  your  pleasure,  and  I  take  the  liberty  to  do  the 
same. 

"The  written  expressions  of  our  several  opinions" 
must,  indeed,  make  up  our  Letters  ;  and  I  have  no  objec- 
tions that  they  should  be  considered  as  goodnatured  oppo- 
nent Essays.  We  give  our  opinions  about  passages  of 
Scripture,  about  arguments  on  them,  and  sometimes 
about  opinions  of  others.  If  your  opinions  are  supported 
by  the  statements  of  truth  in  the  Bible,  they  ought  to 
prevail ;  if  my  opinions  are  most  scriptural,  they  ought 
to  be  adopted  to  the  exclusion  of  yours.  There  is  very 
little  reasoning  among  men  that  amounts  to  demonstra- 
tion ;  for  in  a  demonstration  every  step  must  be  either  a 
self-evident  proposition  or  some  necessary  inference  from 
such  a  proposition.  On  the  subject  of  'testimony,  which 
is  the  sole  object  of  faith,  such  demonstrative  reasoning 
is  not  necessary.  Syllogistic  reasoning  would  be  of  little 
use  in  helping  us  to  ascertain  what  God  has  said,  and 
what  is  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  his  declarations. 
All  attempts  to  show  what  he  ought  to  have  spoken, 
will  go  for  nothing,  if  we  can  learn  what  he  has  actually 
said. 

A  good  illustration,  explanation,  or  reconciliation  of 
seeming  inconsistencies,  which  commends  itself  to  the 
common  sense  of  mankind,  is  often  Avorth  a  hundred 
syllogisms,  and  a  pamphlet  of  verbal  criticisms. 

Hitherto,  in  our  discussion,  I  have  made  it  my  business 
"  to  go  ahead"  in  supporting  the  position,  that  there  will 
he  some  future  punishment  of  men  who  die  impenitent 
and  unpardoned  in  their  sins  :  you  have  principally  con- 
fined yourself  to  following  me,  with  what  you  deem  refu- 
tations of  my  sentiments :  if  you  please,  I  should  like 
that  you  would  now  take  the  lead  in  establishing  your 
tenets  :  and  as  far  as  I  may  think  it  desirable  and  am  able, 
I  will  follow  you  with  such  considerations  as  may  show 
that  your  scheme  of  theology  is  not  built  on  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Bible. 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  2J7 

Let  me  take  turns  with  you  in  acting  on  the  defensive , 
and  perhaps  we  shall  both  grant  that  it  is  easier  to  pull 
down  a  house  than  to  erect  one  that  is  impregnable. 

In  the  mean  time,  permit  me  to  ask,  what  language 
could  be  employed  in  the  Bible  to  teach  the  doctrine  of 
an  endless  hell,  if  it  were  granted  by  you  that  there  is 
any  such  thing  ?  According  to  your  mode  of  interpreting 
Scripture,  it  would  seem  impossible  for  God  to  reveal 
any  knowledge  of  everlasting  punishment  to  men  on 
earth,  even  if  he  intended  to  inflict  it  ;  because  in  speak- 
ing to  us  he  must  employ  the  names  of  things  with  which 
we  are  acquainted  to  express  the  idea  of  an  endless  hell, 
or  else  use  no  intelligible  language.  We  see  no  possibility 
of  avoiding  the  use  of  figurative  language  on  this  sub- 
ject, any  more  than  in  relation  to  the  soul  of  man.  Be- 
cause the  name  of  spirit  literally  signifies  breath  or  oir^ 
or  wind,  shall  we  conclude  that  there  is  no  spirit  in  man 
but  the  air  inhaled  into  his  lungs  ?  Because  the  name  of 
a  soul  literally  means  animal  life,  shall  we  say  there  is 
no  rational,  immortal  soul  in  man  ? 

Because  there  were  literal  fires  and  Avorms  in  the  v^al- 
ley  of  Gehinnom,  and  a  literal  valley  of  the  son  of  Gehin- 
nom,  shall  we  conclude  that  by  hell-fire,  unquenchable 
fires,  and  the  worm  that  never  dies,  we  are  to  understand 
nothing  more  than  those,  terms  literally  mean  ?  This 
mode  of  interpretation  would  banish  all  figurative  lan- 
guage from  the  most  highly  figurative  style  of  writing 
and  would  render  the  Bible  a  nullity.  God  himself,  be- 
cause his  names  literally  signify  breath,  wind,  infinite 
existence,  and  the  like,  would  be  rendered  as  to  his  deity 
a  nonentity. 

I  remain  yours,  respectfully, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY 


19 


218  THEOLOGICAL    DISCDSSIOJ^. 

TO  MR.  EZRA   STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  January  10,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — Your  virtual  pledge  to  oppose  the  doctrine 
of  Universa!isra  so  long  as  yoit  live,  simply  implies  that 
you  a1  p  esent  believe  said  doctrine  to  be  false.  I  desire 
you  to  remember  that  I  am  as  confident  of  the  truth  of 
Universalism  as  you  can  possibly  be  of  the  truth  of  end- 
less punishiuent.  And  I  judge  it  to  be  a  more  reason- 
able supposition  that  you  will  yet  become  a  Universalist 
than  that  /shall  become  a  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  in- 
terminable wo.  You  will  pardon  me  for  mentioning  the 
grounds  of  this  statement.  1st.  You  have  discarded  the 
old  fashioned  idea  that  the  greater  part  of  mankind  will 
be  irretrievably  lost— nay,  if  I  have  understood  aright, 
you  believe  in  the  final  salvation  of  about  three-fourths 
of  our  race.  And  it  seems  more  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  your  faith  will  yet  embrace  the  salvation  of  the  re- 
maining fourth,  than  that  I  shall  adopt  the  belief  of 
endless  punishment  in  any  form.  2d.  The  word  of  faith 
which  /  preach  is  in  your  heart,  if  not  in  your  head — 
for  you  fervently  desire  and  pray  that  Universalism  may 
prove  true.  On  the  other  hand,  the  word  of  faith  which 
you  preach  is  neither  in  my  heart  nor  head— for  I  neither 
believe,  nor  desire,  nor  pray,  that  a  part  of  our  race  may  be 
cast  off  for  ever.  3.  You  have  stated,  that  but  for  the  ex- 
pression, "  they  which  shall  be  accounted  worthy,"  the' 
Testimony  of  Jesus  concerning  the  resurrection  would 
make  you  a  Universalist.  This  single  expression,  then, 
IS  al'  that  stands  between  you  and  Universalism.  But 
there  are  thousands  of  scriptural  expressions  which 
stand  between  me  and  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment. I  might  mention  other  grounds  for  the  statement 
in  question — but  the  foregoing  may  suffice. 

1  have  indeed  complained,  and  I  think  justly,  of  your 
mode  of  manasfing  vour  part  in  our  friendly  controversy  ; 
and  I  am  satisfied  that  in  so  doing  I  have  not  rendered 
myself  obnoxious  to  tlie  rebuke  in^Rom.  ii.  1.  In  your 
edntrevtrsy    with   "the    high    school  brethren   of  th« 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  219 

Presbyterian  Church,"  you  reason  precisely  as  I  should 
be  happy  to  find  you  reasoning  with  me.  You  take  up 
their  positions  and  arguaienis;  and  I  have  ofitimes  ad- 
mired the  dexterous  manner  in  which  you  bar  iheir  de- 
ductions by  pointing  out  the  I'allacy  of  their  premises. 
You  are  not  satisfied  with  stating  your  opinions,  nor 
with  writing  essays  on  the  particular  topics  which  are 
now  unhappily  distracting  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
alienating  the  afiections  of  brethren  of  a  common  faith. 
You  do  more  than  this.  You  endeavour  to  show  them, 
by  straight  forward  argumentation,  that  they  are  certain- 
ly in  the  wrong.  When  they  attempt  to  rebut  your 
reasoning,  you  are  careful  to  publish  a  rejoinder — from 
which  course  you  do  not  desist  until  the  point  in  question 
has  been  fully  and  mutually  canvassed.  This,  in  mv 
judgment,  is  right — and  had  you  pursued  a  similar  course 
w^ith  your  Universalist  brother,  he  would  have  sincerely 
rejoiced. 

With  the  exception  of  the  first  sentence,  I  cordially 
concur  in  the  sentiments  of  the  second  paragraph  of 
your  letter  to  which  this  is  a  reply.  The  third  para- 
graph meets  my  entire  approbation. 

In  your  sixth  paragraph,  you  ask,  "What  language 
could  be  employed  in  the  Bible  to  teach  the  doctrine  of 
an  endless  hell,  if  it  were  granted  by  you  that  there  is 
any  such  thing?"  This  is  my  answer:  If  you  can  ad- 
duce any  scriptural  representation  of  the  immortal  re- 
surrection state,  in  which  it  is  declared  that  there  is  a 
hell  of  misery  in  that  state — or  if  you  cite  Bible  testi- 
mony in  which  the  word  endless^  or  any  term  of  equal 
force,  is  connected  with  punishment — or  if  you  refer  me 
to  any  sacred  Scripture  which,  in  treating  of  the  ihmgs 
of  the  immortal  state  of  being,  connects  even  the  equivo- 
cal adjective  everl' sting  with  misery,— then,  in  either 
of  these  cases,  I  will  yield  the  argument.  It  is  a  plain 
principle,  both  in  hiw  and  logic,  that  "  the  testimony 
must  be  equivalent  to  the  declaration,  or  the  point  to  ue 
proved  is  not  sustained.  If  the  testimony  be  not  to  the 
point,  it  must  be  set  aside."     Your  declaration  is,  that 


220  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

the  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishmeni. 
In  my  judgnjent,  you  have  not  yet  adduced  testimony 
equivalent  to  the  declaraiion. 

But  you  say,  that  according  to  my  "  mode  of  interpret- 
ing Sci ipture,  it  would  stem  impossible  for  God  to  reveal 
any  knowledge  of  everlasting  [endless]  punishment, 
even  if  he  intended  to  inflict  it."  In  reply,  allow  me  to 
state,  that  you  find  no  difficulty  in  expressing  your  faith 
in  endless  punishment — but  you  have  not  yet  expressed 
it  in  Bible  language.  You  do  not  find  it  necessary  to 
coin  any  new  words  or  phrases,  expressive  of  your  doc- 
trinal view?.  And  I  will  add,  that  if  God  designed  to 
teach  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  he  would  have 
found  positive  and  unequivocal  language  to  teach  said 
doctrine.  God's  language  in  the  Bible  is  perfectly 
intelligible  to  me,  without  supposition  on  my  part,  that 
he  intended  "'  to  express  the  idea  of  an  endless  hell." 

Your  queries  in  relation  to  the  fact,  that  "  the  name 
of  spirit,  literally  signifies  breath,  or  air,  or  wind,"  affect 
not  my  views.  I  hold  to  no  future  "life  and  immortali- 
ty" save  that  which  will  be  consequent  of  a  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead.  "  God  only  hath  immortality  in 
himself." 

Your  questions  in  reference  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom, 
touch  not  my  argument.  I  have  shown  in  previous  let- 
ters, that  said  valley,  and  Tophet  therein,  and  the  abom- 
inations thereof,  are  used  by  the  inspired  writers  as  sym- 
bols of  temporal  calamities  which  came  on  Jerusalem 
and  the  Jewish  people  more  than  seventeen  centuries 
since.  You  are  therefore  desired  to  remember,  that  "  the 
mode  of  interpretation"  by  me  adopted,  would  not  "  ban- 
ish all  figurative  language  from  the  most  highly  figura- 
tive style  of  writing,"  nor  would  it  "  render  the  Bible  a 
nullity."  My  mode  of  interpretation  is  simply  to  explain 
Sc.ipfure  by  Scripture.  When  we  have  agreed  that  any 
passage  is  figurative,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  symboli- 
cal of  things  to  transpire  in  the  resurrection  state.  The 
question  ot  reference  is  an  important  item  in  the  exami- 
nation of  testimony. 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  221 

You  State  that  you  have  hitherto  laboured  to  establish 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment;  and  it  is  your  de- 
sire that  I  should  now  take  the  lead  in  an  attempt  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  Universalism.  This  is  certainly 
equitable,  and  I  am  entirely  disposed  to  "  take  turns  with 
you  in  acting  on  the  defensive."  There  are,  however, 
two  objections  to  proceeding  immediately  with  this  work. 
I  will  slate  them  for  your  consideration.  1st.  You 
have  not  replied  to  my  letter  on  the  rich  man  and  Laza- 
rus. This  is  an  important  branch  of  our  discussion,  and 
I  much  desire  to  hear  your  objections  to  my  exposition 
of  that  subject.  My  scriptural  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of 
Universalism  will,  I  think,  demani  undivided  attention. 
2d.  You  have  certified  me  that  2  Thess,  i.  9,  must  for 
ever  prevent  you  from  being  a  Universalist.  You  have 
not  yet  specially  introduced  said  passage  into  this  con- 
troversy, and  I  am  loath  to  proceed  with  any  thing  else 
until  we  have  thoroughly  examined  that  portion  of  sa- 
cred Scripture.  Otherwise  I  might  labour  in  vain — for 
how  can  I  reasonably  expect  to  convince  you  that  Uni- 
versalism is  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  so  long  as  there  ex- 
ists a  passage  which  must  for  ever  prevent  you  from  being 
a  Universalist? 

Besides:  I  have  already  introduced  a  number  of  scrip- 
tural proofs,  with  comments  thereupon,  which  you  have 
not  condescended  to  notice.  In  some  instances,  you 
have  entered  your  objections  to  my  views,  and  to  those 
objections  I  have  replied,  without  receiving  the  slightest 
attention.  I  verily  believe  that  the  arguments  by  me  ad- 
vanced in  reference  to  Prov.  xi.  31,  destroy  the  doctrine 
of  future  punishment  in  all  its  forms  ;  and  the  evidences 
presented  concerning  the  resurrection  state,  in  my  judg- 
ment, fairly  and  fully  establish  the  doctrine  of  Universal- 
ism. It  is  my  earnest  desire  that  the  testimonies  refer- 
red to  should  receive  some  attention.  If  you  wish  it,  I 
will  again  introduce  said  proofs  in  a  condensed  form, 
with  such  an  abstract  of  your  objections  and  my  replies, 
as  will  bring  the  matter  more  fully  into  view.  In  this 
way,  our  readers  will  be  enabled  to  judge  of  the  bearing 


222  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

and  weight  of  the  Universalist  argument,  without  being 
confused  with  a  multiplicity  of  topics. 
Respectfully  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  January  15,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — The  following  remarks  are  intended  as  my 
reply  to  your  letter  of  'Jan,  3d. 

Because  at  death  the  spirit  of  every  man  shall  return 
to  God  that  gave  it,  none  can  infer,  with  any  shadow  of 
reason,  that  every  spirit  will  be  happy  in  the  immediate 
and  sensible  presence  of  its  Maker.  Its  return  to  God 
after  death  does  neither  imply  any  incorporation  into  the 
essence  of  the  Deity,  as  the  Hindoos  feign;  nor  any 
transformation  of  its  nature  or  moral  habits,  or  free  exer- 
r-ises,  which  should  render  the  immediate  presence  of 
God  a  source  of  delight.  It  has  been,  in  my  judgment, 
su'iHciently  evinced  that  the  spirit  returns  to  God  to  un- 
derG^o  a  particular  and  personal  adjudication  either  to 
endless  life  or  endless  death. 

I  have  admitted,  that  after  the  resurrection  of  the 
bodies  of  the  dead,  the  spirits  of  men  that  have  died  will 
be  united  to  their  risen  bodies,  and  no  longer  exist  in  a 
separate  state ;  so  that  in  this  sense  hades,  spoken  of 
primarily  as  the  state  of  separate  human  spirits,  will  be 
no  more.  No  other  destruction  of  hades  has  been  ad- 
mitted by  me  ;  for  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  that  beside 
human,  there  are  other,  spirits,  in  existence,  in  what  we 
commonly  call  the  world  of  spirits.  Because  there  will 
be  no  more  spirits  of  men  in  a  state  of  separation  from 
their  bodies  after  the  resurrection,  and  no  more  a  hades 
in  this  sense,  it  will  not  follow  that  there  is  no  paradise 
-of  God  in  which  the  whole  complex  persons  of  the 
saints,  consisting  of  spirits  united  to  glorified  bodies, 
will  be  happy  with  <jrod  :  nor  will  it  hence  appear,  that 


TBKOLCKJICAL   DISCUSSION.  223 

ihere  is  no  state  of  misery  in  which  tne  whole  complex 
persons  of  the  immortal  wicked  ones  will  be  equitably 
punished  for  ever.  You  ask,  if  I  can  conceive  of  endless 
punishment  in  a  place  that  is  to  be  destroyed :  and  1  an- 
swer, ihdii place^  meaning  position,  point,  or  portion,  in 
infinite  space,  will  never  be  destroyed.  Infinite  space  is 
as  indestructible  as  that  God  whom  we  could  not  con- 
ceive of  as  infinite,  and  omnipresent,  without  necessari- 
ly admitting  such  a  thing  as  unbounded  space. 

While  infinite  space  exists  there  can  be  no  such  de- 
struction of  place  as  will  preclude  a  state  of  misery,  or 
prevent  any  place  from  being  hell  where  any  being  can 
be  found  who  experiences  unmingled  misery,  and  is  as- 
sured of  its  perpetuity. 

By  regarding  many  expressions  in  a  history  as  highly 
figurative,  we  do  not  invalidate  the  truth  of  that  history. 
In  speaking  of  the  battle  of  the  Nile,  one  might  say,  that 
Nelson's  cannon  breathed  out  flames  and  grape-shot. 
"Would  it  follow  from  this  figure  of  breathing  that  there 
was  no  battle  of  the  Nile?  Just  as  unreasonable  would 
it  be  10  infer  from  the  figurative  expression  of  Abraham's 
bosom,  that  Christ  gave  no  true  history  of  events  with 
which  he  was  acquainted. 

Your  whole  argument,  designed  to  show  that  the  ac- 
count of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  is  a  parable,  is  iound- 
ed  on  this  false  principle,  that  if  one  part,  or  word,  of  a 
history  be  used  figuratively,  the  whole  history  must  be 
deemed  a  parable.  No  principles  of  interpretation  could 
be  more  absurd  ;  for  it  would  follow  that  if  any  figures 
of  speech  are  used  in  the  history  of  General  W^ashing- 
ton,  then  there  was  no  real  Washington,  and  no  revolu- 
tionary war,  but  Washington's  name  was  the  symbol  of 
some  fancy,  and  the  American  revolution  was  but  an 
emblem  of  some  Don  Quixotic  rencontre. 

Every  one  will  see  the  utter  fallacy  of  the  inference, 
that  if  Abrahani's  bosom  was  an  emblem  of  the  society 
of  that  father  of  the  faithful,  then  Lazarus  must  have 
been  a  figure,  instead  of  a  real  beggar,  and  the  rich  man 
no  man  at  all,  but  a  symbol  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 


224  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

Your  whole  attempts  to  disprove  the  statement  that 
Christ  srave  a  simple  narrative  of  facts,  of  which  he  had 
knowledge,  rest  on  your  assertion,  that  "  If  one  part  be 
emblematical,  the  whole  must  be  interpreted  paraboli- 
cally."     This  I  deny. 

Your  strained,  unnatural  paraphrase  of  the  whole  ac- 
count, were  it  a  parable,  would  be  sufficient  to  discard 
your  scheme,  which  appears  sufficiently  ridiculous,  with- 
out further  remarks  from  your  friend, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  January  22,  1835. 
Dear  Sir — Were  I  to  answer  one  of  your  communica- 
t>ions  with  the  sweeping  declaration,  that  your  premises 
are  false  and  your  deductions  ridiculous,  you  would  most 
probably  inform  me,  that  I  had  disregarded  the  princi- 
ples of  controversial  courtesy,  and  rendered  myself  ob- 
noxious to  the  rebuke,  that  he  who  is  at  a  loss  for  argu- 
rnenl  frequently  resorts  to  the  assertion  that  his  oppo- 
nent's reasoning  is  unworthy  of  attention.  I  verily  be- 
lieve that  the  exposition  I  have  given  of  the  parable  of  the 
rich  man  and  Lazarus,  is  the  only  true  biblical  interpreta- 
tion thereof;  and  on  a  subject  of  so  much  importance  as 
this,  it  especially  becomes  us  severally  to  manifest  a  dis- 
position fully  to  investigate  the  evidences  presented  in 
the  case.  Brevity  in  composition  will  not  compensate 
for  lack  of  argument,  nor  is  assertion  the  equivalent  of 
proof.  In  replying  to  your  letters,  I  have  invariably  pro- 
posed the  examination  of  every  point  which  had  even  the 
semblance  of  a  bearing  on  the  conjoint  question  in  de- 
bate ;  and  I  am  aware  that  in  so  doing,  my  communica- 
tions have  sometimes  occupied  more  space  than  yours. 
If  an  apology  be  necessary,  it  may  be  found  in  my  fer- 
vent desire  thoroughly  to  canvass  every  position  and  ar 
gument  introduced  into  this  discussion. 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  225 

You  concede  that  on  the  demise  of  each  individual  of 
our  race,  "  the  spirit  returns  unto  God  who  gave  it."  Id 
view  of  this  concession,  Universalism  is  established  be- 
yond the  reach  of  cavil,  unless  you  can  prove  one  or 
other  of  the  following  points:  1st.  That  spiritually  to 
abide  with  God  in  his  heavenly  court  does  not  necessarily 
imply  unmixed  enjoyment;  or,  2d.  That  some  of  the 
spirits  which  return  to  God  will  be  ejected  from  his  sen- 
sible presence.  The  Jirst  point  you  will  not  attempt  to 
establish— for  it  is  written,  "In  thy  presence  there  is 
fulness  of  joy;  at  thy  right  hand  there  are  pleasures  for 
ever  more,"  Psalm  xvi.  11 ;  and  the  second  is  not  suscep- 
tible of  proof.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  written,  "  The 
Faiher  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his 

hands All  that  the  Fathe'r  giveth  me  shall  come 

tome;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  i?i  no  wise 
cast  out,''^  John  iii.  35 ;  vi.  37.  You  say,  indeed,  "  It  has 
been,  in  my  judgment,  sufficiently  evinced,  that  the 
spirit  returns  to  God  to  undergo  a  particular  and  personal 
adjudication  either  to  endless  life  or  endless  death-' — but 
I  have  not  yet  seen  any  testimony  equivalent  to  this 
declaration.  Be  sure,  you  have  endeavoured  to  establish 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  general  judgment  and  of  endless 
punishment — but  I  cannot  refer  to  any  part  of  our  cor- 
respondence in  which  you  have  so  much  as  attempted  to 
prove  "a  particular  and  personal  adjudication"  of  the 
spirit.  Besides:  in  your  exposition  of  the  parable  be- 
fore us.  you  suppose  that  immediately  after  the  death  of 
the  rich  man,  his  spirit  entered  into  a  state  of  misery  I 
In  this  case  you  intimate  nothing  concerning  ''  a  particu- 
lar and  personal  adjudication,"  nor  does  it  ap])ear  from 
your  paraphrase  of  the  subject,  that  the  spirit  of  either 
the  rich  man  or  Lazarus  returned  unto  God  who  gave 
iL 

In  your  remarks  in  relation  to  the  destruction  of  hades, 
you  have  in  some  measure  abandoned  the  views  advanced 
in  your  letter  of  May  9th,  1834.  In  that  letter,  you  con- 
sider paradise  a  department  of  hades  ;  and  consequently 
in  whatever  sense  hades  is  to   be  destroyed,  paradise 


22C  THBOLOOICAL   DISCUSSION. 

will  also  cease  to  be.  Yet  in  the  communication  before 
me,  you  speak  of  paradise  as  the  immortal  abode  of  ihe 
saints  with  God!  Besides:  you  allege  that  "place, 
ineaning  position,  point,  or  portion,  in  infinite  space,  will 
flever  be  destroyed."  Granted — but  on  the  grounds 
hitherto  assumed  by  you,  hades,  meaning  a  place  or  state 
of  departed  spirits,  will,  as  such,  be  destroyed.  It  fol- 
lows, then,  according  to  your  own  showing,  that  hades, 
with  your  sttpposed  divisions  of  it  into  paradise  Rnd  ge- 
hemia,  will,  as  a  place  or  state  of  departed  spirits,  be 
destroyed.  Consequently  you  must  either  yield  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  punishment,  or  show  that  there  is  ano- 
ther hell  of  misery  in  "  infinite  space."  You  assume 
the  latter  position — but  your  correspondent  respectfully 
awaits  the  proof  I  desire  you  to  remember  that  the  scrip- 
tural use  of  the  word  hades  will  not  assist  you  in  your 
attempt  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment 
— for  hades,  as  a  place  or  state  of  departed  spirits,  is  to 
be  destroyed.  And  though  it  does  not  hence  appear, 
''that  there  is  no  state  of  misery  in  which  the  whole 
complex  persons  of  the  immortal  wicked  ones  will  be 
equitably  punished  for  ever,"  neither  does  it  follow  that 
there  is  such  a  state  of  misery.  I  am  not  required  to 
show  that  there  is  not — but  you  are  required  to  snow  that 
there  is,  or  you  fail  to  establish  your  position. 

In  special  reference  to  the  case  of  the  rich  man,  I  again 
repeat,  that  hades,  however  numerous  its  divisions  maybe, 
will  cease  to  be,  as  a  state  or  place  of  departed  spirits,  ac- 
cording to  your  ow^n  showing ;  and  the  inquiry  recurs, 
Can  you  conceive  of  endless  punishment  in  a  place  that 
is  to  be  destroyed  ?  If  you  cannot,  you  must  concede 
that  the  case  of  the  rich  man,  even  in  your  own  view 
of  the  matter,  furnishes  no  proof  of  interminable  wretch- 
edness. 

Your  remarks  on  the  impropriety  of  disallowing  the 
use  of  figurative  expressions  in  historical  relations,  are  in 
the  main  correct.  But,  in  my  judgment,  they  touch  not 
the  general  principles  by  me  advanced,  in  reference  to  the 
pajable  in  discussion.    I  will  attempt  an  exposition  of 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  227 

the  point  in  question,  by  noticing  the  illustrations  by  }ou 
introduced. 

"  Nelson's  cannon  breathed  out  flames  and  grape-shot.'* 
Here  tlie  word  breathed  is  obviously  ?i  figurative  expression^ 
and  the  historical  relation  is  not  invalidated  thereby. 
But  suppose  you  consider  the  cannon^  the  thing  itself^  a 
figure — how  then?  Plainly,  it  would  follow  that  the 
"  flames  and  grape-shot"  must  also  be  understood  sym- 
bolically ;  and  in  this  case,  the  entire  account  would  lose 
its  historical  character.  Again:  suppose  you  had  been 
an  eye-witness  of  the  battle  of  the  Nile,  and  in  your  ac- 
count thereof  you  should  say,  "  I  saw  Nelson  afar  off",  and 
a  diamond  pin  in  his  bosom."  I  would  understand  you  to 
mean,  that  you  really  saw  Nelson,  and  really  saAv  the 
diamond  pin,  and  that  said  pin  was  really  in  Nelson's 
bosom.  This,  you  perceive,  is  a  case  parallel  to  the  one 
in  the  parable  before  us. 

You  refer  to  Don  Quixote.  Suppose  his  battle  with 
the  wind-mill  to  be  a  historical  relation  of  fact.  In  this 
case,  would  you  suppose  that  the  Don  and  the  proverb- 
loving  Sancho  were  only  representatives  of  characters  of 
corresponding  description  ?  Plainly  not — for  if  you  view 
the  rencontre  with  the  wind-mill  as  a  real  circumstance^ 
you  must  concede  that  the  Don  and  his  valet  were  real 
personages. 

And  now  for  the  application.  You  allow  that  Laza- 
rus, and  the  rich  man,  and  Abraham,  were  real  persona- 
ges, and  that  there  was  a  real  dialogue  between  the  two 
latter.  You  concede  that  the  rich  man  really  s^rit' Abraham 
afar  off*.  AVith  what  shadow  of  propriety,  then,  can  you 
allege  that  Abraham's  bosom  is  a  figure?  Look  at  the 
language  :  "  And  seeth  Abraham  afar  off",  and  Lazarus  in 
his  bosom."  As  distinctly  as  he  saw  the  one,  he  saw  the 
other.  He  saw  Abraham — he  saw  Lazarus — he  really 
saw  them  both ;  and  if  this  be  a  relation  of  facts,  the 
rich  man  really  saw  Lazarus  in  Abraham'' s  bosom.  Far- 
ther :  you  contend  that  the  rich  man  really  "  lifted  up  his 
eyes,"  and  really  conversed  with  Abraham.  In  this  case, 
every  just  principle  of  interpretation  requires  you  to  al- 


228  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

loAV  that  the  rich  man's  tongue  was  as  real  as  were  his 
eyes.  Now  if  this  be  so,  ihejinger  of  Lazarus  and  the 
bosom  of  Abraham  must  be  understood  in  a  literal  sense. 
If,  in  any  account  whatever,  several  members  of  the  body, 
whether  animal  or  spiritual,  be  literally  spoken  of,  we 
have  no  right  to  construe  the  mention  of  any  other  mem- 
ber symbolically.  If,  in  speaking  of  Nelson's  cannon  liter- 
ally, you  mention  the  touch-hole,  or  the  carriage  on  which 
the  deadly  weapon  is  carried  from  place  to  place,  we  are 
bound  to  understand  you  in  the  same  literal  sense.  So  if  we 
speak  literally  of  Abraham  as  a  man,  and  then  speak  of 
the  bosom  of  Abraham,  no  one  is  justified  in  giving  to 
the  latter  a  symbolical  sense.  Once  granted  that  the  bo- 
som of  Abraham  is  a  figure,  it  is  established  that  Abra- 
ham stands  but  as  a  parabolic  representative  ;  and  so  also 
of  Lazarus  and  of  the  rich  man.  You  are  respectfully 
desired  duly  to  weigh  these  considerations,  and  to  furnisn 
your  reasons,  if  any  you  bave,  why  the  conclusions  con- 
sequent of  the  argument  should  not  be  admitted. 

You  have  not  attempted  to  prove  that  what  I  term  a 
parable  is  a  literal  relation  of  facts.  I  have  staled  many 
reasons  for  considering  it  a  parable,  and  you  have  stated 
none  for  understanding  it  literally.  You  have  the  afl5r- 
mative  of  the  question,  and  should  therefore  present  your 
evidences  in  the  case. 

On  comparing  my  exposition  of  the  parable  with  your 
reply,  you  will  discover  many  facts  and  illustrations  to 
which  you  have  given  not  the  slightest  attention.  In  ad- 
dition thereto  I  present  the  following :  On  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  account  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  is  a 
literal  relation  of  facts,  I  Avish  to  be  informed  of  what 
crime  the  rich  man  was  guilty  ?  You  have  given  him  a 
very  fair,  honourable  character.  He  was  truly  charita- 
ble— and  charity  is  greater  than  faith  or  hope.  His  riches, 
sumptuous  fare,  and  gorgeous  apparel,  are  not  mentioned 
as  any  thing  worthy  of  condemnation.  All  that  is  said 
about  him  is,  that  in  his  lifetime  he  had  received  his 
^ood  things — but  that  these  were  the  fruits  of  unjust  deal- 
ing is  not  so  much  as  intimated.  It  is  written,  "  The  up- 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  229 

right  shall  have  good  things  in  possession,"  Prov.  xxviii.  10. 
T  cannot  allow  you  to  infer  that  the  rich  man  was  a  sin- 
ful wretch  because  he  was  damned— for  this  would  be 
reasoning  in  a  circle— it  would  be  proving  the  thing  to 
be  proved,  by  itself. 

On  the  other  hand,  what  were  the  virtues  of  Lazarus? 
There  is  not  a  word  said  commendatory  of  his  character, 
in  the  whole  account.  He  suffered  evil  things — and  it  is 
written,  "  Whoso  keepeth  the  commandment  shall  feel 
no  evil  thing,''''  Eccles.  viii.  5.  He  was  covered  with  sores, 
a  beggar,  and  in  want— and  the  face  of  the  record,  al- 
lowing it  to  be  a  history,  gives  me  as  much  authority  for 
declaring  that  he  was  a  lazy,  unclean  sinner,  as  it  does 
you  to  affirm  that  he  was  a  righteous  man. 
_  In  the  parabolic  view  of  the  subject,  all  these  difficul- 
ties are  readily  solved  ;  and  however  unnatural,  strained 
and  ridiculovs  my  exposition  may  appear  in  your  sight, 
it  is  the  only  interpretation  of  the  subject,  which,  in  my 
judgment,  can  be  fairly  sustained  by  the  record  of  the 
word  of  God.  And  I  am  persuaded  that  such  will  yet 
be  the  conviction  of  my  respected  correspondent. 
Affectionately  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  3,  1834. 
Dear  Sir— I  never  pray  for  the  salvation  of  those  whom 
I  believe  to  have  entered  the  state  of  the  miserable  in  the 
world  of  spirits  ;  nor  the  pardon  of  those  who  have  com- 
mitted the  unpardonable  sin ;  because  the  Spirit  of  in- 
spiration teaches  us  not  to  pray  for  such  persons.  I  have 
never  prayed  that  Universalism  may  prove  true,  for  that, 
in  my  esteem,  would  be  praying  that  a  most  pernicious 
false  system  might  prove  true.  In  submission  to  the  will 
of  God,  I  pray  for  the  conversion,  and  thereby  the  salva- 
tion of  aU  men  who  are  yet  prisoners  of  hope :  and  I 
20 


230  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

doubt  not  that  the  time  will  come,  when  for  a  thousand 
years,  true  piety  will  be  as  extensively  spread  through 
the  wide  world  as  irreligion  and  false  religion  have  been. 

I  have  never  said  that  nothing  but  one  expression  or 
clause  of  Scripture  prevents  me  from  becoming  a  Uni- 
versalist;  for  the  Bible  seems  to  me  from  beginning  to 
end  to  be  full  of  the  doctrine  of  the  future,  interminable 
punishment  of  a  multitude  of  impenitent,  unpardoned 
sinners.  If,  however,  I  could  be  persuaded  that  any  one 
passage  of  the  Bible  was  intended  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
teach  the  doctrine  of  the  future  salvation  and  happiness 
of  all  mankind,  I  must  admit  the  doctrine,  and  construe 
all  other  passages  of  the  Bible  in  consistency  with  it,  or 
reject  the  whole.  In  like  manner,  if  convinced,  as  I  am 
most  clearly,  that  any  one  passage  of  the  sacred  oracles 
teaches  the  everlasting  punishment  of  some  of  the  hu- 
man family,  I  must  construe  all  the  other  parts  of  the 
divinely  inspired  volume  in  consistency  with  that  doc- 
trine, or  reject  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. 

That  you,  sir,  are  not  at  all  likely  to  give  up  your  only 
hope  of  future  blessedness,  founded  in  the  belief  that  all 
mankind  will  be  rendered  happy,  merely  by  being  raised 
from  the  dead  and  rendered  immortal,  I  am  constrained, 
reluctantly,  to  believe. 

The  language  in  which  I  teach  the  doctrine  of  endless 
misery  as  the  portion  of  some  after  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  is  the  very  language  of  the  Bible;  and  yet  you 
believe  it  not ;  but  ascribe  to  every  plain  assertion  of  fu- 
ture misery  some  far  fetched,  inconsistent,  or  absurd 
meaning.  The  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  to  gather  all 
nations  before  him,  and  then  divide  the  righteous  from 
the  wicked,  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the 
goats,  when  about  to  fold  them  for  the  night,  with  you  is 
something  already  past,  while  you  know  that  neither  you 
nor  I,  nor  any  of  the  living  nations  have  yet  been  gath- 
ered together  in  the  presence  of  the  Judge.  With  you 
the  coming  forth  of  some  to  "  the  resurrection  of  damna- 
tion," is  no  damnation  after  the  resurrection. 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  831 

"Why  then  should  we  do  any  thing  more  than  state  our 
opinions,  with  such  reasons  for  them  as  we  may  think 
proper,  and  then  leave  the  controversy? 

To  meet  you,  and  my  high  church  brethren,  nnd  all  others 
who  choose  to  assail  me  at  every  point,  would  require  at 
least  nine  collateral  lives  in  one  man.  My  high  church 
brethren  belong  to  the  same  family  with  myself,  and  I  feel 
free  to  handle  them,  therefore,  with  more  severity  than  any 
one  whom  I  regard  as  a  stranger  to  the  Christian  com- 
munity. I  would  argue  with  a  Christian  brother  closely 
and  pungently,  and  rebuke  him  sharply,  if  I  saw  there 
was  need,  while  we  walked  side  by  side,  and  while  each 
thought  his  side  of  the  grand  highway  of  holiness  the 
nearest  and  the  best  to  heaven  ;  but  were  I  attending  some 
poor  malefactor  in  his  white  frock  and  cap,  trimmed  in 
black,  to  the  gallows,  I  should  observe  unusual  tenderness 
in  all  my  discourse,  for  fear  of  needlessly  Avounding  his 
feelings,  and  preventing  all  good  effects  of  the  gospel 
which  I  might  preach  to  him. 

A  brother  might  get  good  from  a  little  friendly  severity  ; 
but  pity,  compassion,  and  the  utmost  tenderness  of  hand- 
ling, belong  to  one  who  is  under  sentence  of  death,  and 
on  his  way  to  the  gallows,  but  so  disordered  in  mind  as 
not  to  know  it. 

You  hold,  it  seems,  to  no  future  life  and  immortality, 
but  what  is  consequent  upon  the  resurrection  of  the  dead ; 
but  I  hold  to  the  continued  existence  of  a  man's  spirit 
when  it  goes  out  of  his  body  at  death,  until  the  resurrec- 
tion;  and  that,  independently  of  the  resuscitation  of  the 
body,  the  spirit  of  every  man,  once  created,  is  according 
to  the  Divine  purpose  as  immortal  and  everlasting  as 
himself.  From  your  premises,  which  are  not  true,  you 
naturally  enough  infer  that  after  death  the  rich  man  was 
not  in  torment,  and  that  Lazarus  was  not  in  the  blessed 
society  of  the  faithful,  because  when  they  died  they  be- 
came nothing  until  new  made  at  the  future  resurrection. 
My  theory,  however,  happens  to  be  that  of  the  Bible  and 
the  Saviour,  that  there  is  a  spiritual  existence  of  the  soul 
of  man  between  the  dissolution  of  his  body  and  the  fu- 


232  THEOLOGICAL    DISCCSSION. 

ture,  general  resurrection  ;  and  according:  to  this  doctrine, 
it  was  perfectly  natural  to  talk  of  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  immediately  after  death,  as  being  happy  or  mis- 
erable ;  and  to  say,  that  some  are  "  the  spirits  of  the  just 
made  perfect,"  while  '*  the  rich  man  also  died,  and  was 
buried,  and  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments." 

You  ask  for  proof,  after  I  have  given  it  repeatedly,  that 
m  the  immortal  resurrection  state  there  is  a  state,  or  hell, 
of  endless  misery.  I  certify  to  you  and  all  concerned, 
again,  that  "  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his 
glory  and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him,"  and  shall  "  sit 
upon  the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  before  him  shall  be 
gathered  all  nations,"  which  event  has  not  yet  occurred, 
THEN  "  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  a 
shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats,"  and  then, 
"  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but 
the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  The  punishment  shall 
last  as  long  as  the  life,  for  the  duration  of  each  is  ex- 
pressed by  precisely  the  same  word  in  the  original  lan- 
guage of  our  Saviour. 

Let  me  not,  however,  travel  over  the  same  ground 
twice  in  this  amicable  controversy.  To  your  "  twistifi- 
cation"  of  the  account  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  I 
have  already  made  all  the  reply  which  I  think  it  deserves. 
No  man  would  ever  be  absurd  enough  to  adopt  your  ex- 
planation and  perversion,  had  he  not  previously  settled  it 
in  his  own  mind  that  there  shall  be  no  sinners  in  a  fu- 
ture state  of  existence  and  suffering.  Any  sober  critic 
will  think  a  smile  a  sufficient  answer  to  all  your  laboured 
endeavours  to  make  the  rich  man  to  represent  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  and  Lazarus  publicans  and  sinners.  You 
may  summon  Lightfoot,  and  Hammond,  and  "^Vhitby,  to 
your  aid,  but  after  all  I  must  tell  you  that  your  comment, 
to  niy  mind,  is  quite  as  ridiculous  as  that  of  the  spiritu- 
alizer  of  the  Bible,  who  made  three  flocks  of  sheep  h/imr 
by  a  well  in  the  field,  to  denote  the  trinity  ;  and  the  well  to 
he  the  unity  of  the  Deity;  who,  when  he  came  to  his 
improvement  of  the  discourse,  said,  "  behold,  a  well  in 
ihe  field — oh,  my  hearers,  what  a  mercy  it  was  that  the 


THEOLOGICAL     DISCUSSION.  583 

field  was  not  in  the  well,  instead  of  the  well  in  the  field  l" 
Gen.  xxix.  2. 

You  refer  me  to  a  passage  in  2  Thess.  i,  which  I  have 
already  quoted,  from  the  sixth  to  the  tenth  verse,  and  wish 
that  I  should  enter  into  a  more  full  discussion  with  you 
concerning  its  applicMtion  to  the  matter  in  dispute.  To 
me  the  passage  seemed  so  clear,  after  all  your  attempts 
to  heap  ditlicuUies  upon  it,  that  I  thought  further  com- 
ment needless.  I  will,  however,  answer  some  of  your 
questions  on  that  text.  You  ask,  "  JVlio  troubled  the 
Thessalonians  ?  for  they  were  the  persons  to  be  punished 
in  the  manner  stated."  I  answer.  Somebody  —  some 
wicked  persons  ;  we  do  not  certainly  know  who.  Who- 
ever they  were,  they  have  been  punished  with  destruc- 
tion which  will  prove  everlasting.  From  your  citation 
ot  Acts  xvii.  5 — 9,  you  seem  to  think  they  were  Jews.  I 
think  some  of  them  may  have  been  Jews,  but  that  in  ge- 
neral they  were  the  countrymen  of  the  Thessalonian 
Christians;  for  to  '^  the  Church  of  the  Thessalonians''  he 
says,  1  Thess.  ii.  14,  "ye  also  have  suffered  like  things 
of  your  own  countrymen"  which  the  churches  in  Judea 
have  suffered  from  their  unbelieving  countrymen  the 
Jews.  This  seems  clearly  to  intimate,  that  native  Greeks 
of  Thessalonica,  who  never  were  at  Judea,  were  the  per- 
sons to  be  punished  when  the  Lord  should  come. 

At  the  time  when  Paul  planted  the  gospel  in  Thessa- 
lonica, he  preached  at  first  in  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews, 
and  when  some  of  them  believed,  their  unbelieving  breth- 
ren the  Jews,  "moved  with  envy,  took  unto  them  certain 
lewd  fellows  of  the  baser  sort,  and  gathered  a  company, 
and  set  all  the  city  in  an  uproar,  and  assaulted  the  house 
of  Jason."  But  besides  some  few  Jews,  of  the  devout 
Greeks  a  multitude  believed,  and  were  organized  into  a 
Cliristian  church,  "  and  of  the  chief  women  not  a  few." 
Now  when  Paul,  at  a  subsequent  time,  wrote  to  the 
Church  of  Thessalonica  of  the  sufferings  which  they  had 
endured,  probably  since  he  last  visited  them,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  he  referred  principally  to  Jews;  but  rather 
much  reason  to  conclude  that  the  unbelieving  Greeks 
20* 


S34  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

Were  the  principal  persecutors,  "who  were  to  be  punished 
when  Christ  should  come,  not  to  Thessalonica,  nor  to  Je- 
rusalem, but  to  judge  the  world  in  righteousness.  The 
time,  moreover,  when  Christ  should  come  to  be  glorified 
in  his  saints  and  to  recompense  tribulation  to  them  who 
troubled  pious  Thessalonians,  is  shown  by  2  Thess.  ii, 
to  be  subsequent  to  the  erection  and  the  destruction  of  the 
papal  man  of  sin.  Paul  cautions  his  readers  not  to  think 
that  the  day  of  recompense  of  which  he  had  been  speak- 
ing, was  near  at  hand ;  for  says  he,  that  day,  meaning 
the  day  when  the  Lord  Jesus  should  be  revealed  from 
heaven,  in  tlaming  fire  taking  vengeance  on  them  that 
know  not  God,  "  shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a 
falling  away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the 
son  of  perdition,  who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself 
against  all  that  is  called  God."  Now  this  papal 'son  of 
perdition,  who  pretends  to  sit  in  the  temple  of  God  and 
•show  himself  as  an  object  of  worship,  whose  coming  is 
after  the  working  of  Satan,  with  all  power,  and  signs, 
and  lying  wonders,  was  not  revealed  for  several  hundred 
years  after  Christ's  coming  judicially  by  the  Roman  army 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

This  shows  that  your  attempt  to  make  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  coming,  *'  in  flaming  fire  taking  vengeance  on 
them  that  know  not  God,  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  to  the  time  of  Jerusalem's  destruc- 
tion, is  perfectly  futile. 

You  ask  '*  When  were  they  to  be  punished  ?"  I  answer, 
uhen,  after  the  rise  and  fall  of  the  papacy,  the  Lord  Je- 
sus shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  an- 
gels : — when  he  shall  gather  all  nations  before  him,  and 
shall  divide  the  righteous  from  the  wicked,  to  consign  the 
first  to  everlasting  life,  and  the  last  to  everlasting  pun- 
ishment, originally  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 

Then  they  who  have  not  received  "  the  love  of  the 
truth,  that  they  might  be  saved,"  and  to  whom  for  their 
love  of  lies,  God  has  sent  strong  delusion,  that  they  should 
believe  a  lie,  shall  be  damned,  with  all  who  believed  not 
the  truth,  but  "  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness."     You 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  235 

ask,  "  Where  shall  they  be  punished  ?"  I  answer,  wher- 
ever they  are,  or  may  be  in  a  state  of  banishment  from 
the  blissful  and  gracious  presence  of  the  Lord.  I  an- 
swer, in  liell,  which  is  any  and  every  place  in  which  any 
one  experiences  unmingled  and  hopeless  misery. 

Finally,  you  ask,  "In  what  was  the  punishment  to 
consist  ?"  In  such  tribulation  as  God  shall  rcco/yipcnse  to 
tliem ;  in  such  vengeance  as  he  shall  take  on  them  ;  ia 
•everlasting  destruction  from  his  presence,  not  from  exis- 
tence, because  then  their  everlasting  tribulation  would 
i)e  impossible  ;  and  in  being  excluded  forever  from  the  soci- 
ety of  the  saints  who  shall  be  glorified  with  their  Redeemer. 

All  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  you  have  hitherto 
adduced  in  support  of  your  utterly  false  and  pernicious 
system,  have  received  in  my  view  ample  attention. 

Having  thus  spoken  my  sentiments  freely  and  candidly, 
I  shall  not  complain  if  you  should  employ  equally  strong 
language  in  giving  your  views  of  what  I  hold  to  be  the 
solemn  and  awful  truth  of  God  concerning  the  endless 
•damnation  of  the  impenitently  wicked.  If  I  have  taken 
-my  gloves  off  to  write  the  present  epistle,  remember  that 
you  have  invited  me  to  make  as  free  with  you  as  with 
my  high  church  Presbyterian  brethren,  who  with  all 
their  faults,  are  Christ's  ministers  still. 

Yours,  without  one  particle  of  unkind  feeling,  however 
I  may  seem  severe.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  Feb  7,  1835. 
x^ear  Sir — There  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  great  want  of 
candour  and  charity  in  many  parts  of  your  letter  to  which 
this  is  a  reply.  You  say,  that  my  "  hope  of  future  bless- 
edness is  founded  in  the  belief  that  all  mankind  will  be 
rendered  happy  merely  by  being  raised  from  the  dead,  and 
rendered  immortal."  Surely  you  cannot  have  either  over* 
looked  or  forgotten  my  reiterated  declaration,  that  man- 


236  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

kind  will  be  rendered  happy  hereafter  by  being  made  alive 
in  Chmt,ini7icorruption,poxt'er,gloi'y;  m  a  sphitud  hody, 
in  the  image  of  the  heavenly.  This  is  the  express  testimony 
of  Divine  Revelation;  and  as  such  I  receive  it  in  the  love 
of  the  truth. 

Your  illustration  and  implied  comparison  of  the  "  poor 
malefactor  in  his  white  frock  and  cap,"  savours  as  little  of 
Christian  charity  as  of  courteous  wit ;  and  as  I  am  will- 
ing to  believe  you  penned  it  without  due  reflection,  I  will 
pass  it  by  without  further  remarks. 

In  speaking  of  the  nch  man  and  Lazarus^  you  intimate 
that  I  deny  your  exposition,  "  because  when  they  died 
they  became  nothing  until  new  made  in  the  resurrection." 
Surely  you  liave  not  so  carelessly  perused  my  letter  as  to 
receive  the  impression,  that  I  acknowledge  the  account  in 
question  to  be  a  literal  relation  of  facts.  In  my  exposi- 
tion of  that  subject,  neither  natural  death,  nor  a  resurrec- 
tion into  life,  is  so  much  as  hinted  at. 

In  reference  to  the  same  subject,  you  utter  a  sentence 
which  might  perhaps  be  returned  to  you  with  the  altera- 
tion of  one  word — as  follows : — "  No  man  would  ever  be 
absurd  enough  to  adopt  your  exposition  and  perversion, 
had  he  not  previously  settled  it  in  his  own  mind  that  there 
fihall  be  &ome  sinners  in  a  future  state  of  existence  and 
suffering." 

You  seem  to  think  that  a  smile  is  sufficient  answer  to 
my  scriptural  exposition  of  the  parable  in  question.  Allow 
me  to  assure  you,  that  as  I  was  not  laughed  into  that  view 
of  that  subject,  it  is  not  probable  I  shall  ever  be  smiled 
out  of  it.  I  have  at  least  attempted  to  establish  every  point 
of  my  exposition  by  sacred  Scripture ;  and  it  appears  to 
me  that  your  respect  for  the  Bible,  if  not  for  your  corres- 
pondent, should  induce  you  to  give  serious  attention  to  the 
matter.  I  should  consider  it  as  unbecoming  in  me  to 
mourn  over  the  prospective  salvation  of  all  our  race,  as  it 
would  be  in  you  to  crack  a  joke  in  view  of  endless  dam- 
nation. 

You  denounce  Universalism  as  an  "  utterly  false  and 
pernicious  system,"  and  you  employ  other  oflfensive  epi- 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  1^37 

thets  in  expression  of  your  views  and  feelings.  As  I  sup- 
pose you  adopted  this  measure  in  order  to  satisfy  your 
Presbyterian  brethren  that  you  are  not  going  over  to  the 
Universalists,  I  will  simply  remark,  that  the  letter  before 
me  will,  in  my  judgment,  be  amply  sufficient  for  that 
purpose;  and  I  therefore  hope  you  will  strive  to  avoid  all 
offensive  language  in  future. 

When  1  desired  you  to  reason  with  your  Universalist 
brother  as  you  do  with  your  high  school  brethren  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  you  surely  could  not  have  so  misap- 
prehended my  meaning,  as  to  suppose  that  I  wished  you 
to  take  off  the  gloves  of  Christian  charity.  I  sincerely  as- 
sure you,  that  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  use  as  "  strong 
language  "  to  you  as  you  have  used  to  me.  You  are  not 
ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  your  correspondent  is  not  alto- 
gether unacquainted  with  the  use  of  the  two-edged  sword 
of  ridicule  and  satire — but  he  hereby  re-assures  you,  that 
he  prefers  to  wield  the  "  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the 
word  of  Gody  It  is  his  humble  desire  and  prayer,  that 
in  the  last  hour  of  his  earthly  pilgrimage  he  may  enjoy 
the  satisfaction  of  knowing,  that  in  this  discussion  he  has 
not  written  a  line,  or  used  an  expression,  which  he  could 
wish  to  erase. 

Having  thus  briefly  noticed  a  few  incidental  items  of 
your  letter,  I  shall  proceed  to  examine  whatever  seems  to 
have  a  bearing  on  the  question  in  debate. 

It  appears  you  "  have  never  prayed  that  TJniversalism 
may  prove  true."  I  think  I  may  safely  add,  you  have  never 
prayed  that  it  may  prove  false,  however  false  you  may  he- 
licve  it  to  be.  Consequently,  though  you  do  not  pray  for 
Universalism,  you  do  not  pray  against  it.  You  are  not 
with  us  in  faith  and  preaching — and  in  this  respect  you 
are  against  us.  Matt.  xii.  30.  But  in  the  matter  of  prayer 
and  desire,  you  "  are  on  our  part,"  Mark  ix.  40 — for  "  he 
that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us,'^  Luke  ix.  50.  And  I  am 
not  without  hope  that  you  will  yet  cease  to  preach  what 
you  cannot  pray  for  ;  and  that  you  will  then  determine  to 
proclaim  the  doctrine  against  which  you  cannot  find  it  in 
your  heart  to  pray.     I  must  acknowledge    nevertheless, 


^^  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

wnnli^  ^^^  ^"^^  ^^i^^'^'  ^°^  happiness  of  all  mankind 
would,    in  your  judgment,  be  so  awful  and  perScTous  a 

cannrretLrtr^^-^^"-^"^^^^   ^^^^^  toTntim  t^ 

against  i'!'  ^^''  '^'''  ''  ''   prevent  you  from  praying 

Your  incidental  mention  of  the  ''unpardonable  sin  "  a«; 

ITlfuV'r  ^'"^  ''^  ''''''''''  soon/ My'T^Vo  Aug 
t^7   1S34,  contained  some  important  remarks  on  thattnh 

mat  point  and  I  have  several  times  desired  vo,i  tn  it.fl 
wherein  the  argument  failed  to  satisfy  you-but  von  h.vp 
hitherto  allowed  the  matter  to  rest  I  an?  rP.llv  J  l 
to  hear  from  you  on  this  subiect  fnr  if  t  ^  solicitous 
convincing  yo^u  that  ^lS^:t^JJ,  Zs  Z^^^^ 
the  force  of  the  passage  in  ornnf  nf  yr  ."''^''"V^  ^™pair 

the   Bible.     As  to  the  "  resurrection  of  damnation  "W 

leuer  oi  Aug  27,  1834;  and  the  events  connected    with 


THEOLOGICAL     DTSCUSSIGN.  23&' 

was  swallowed  up  and  destroyed  by  the  express  and  posi- 
tive testimony  of  our  Lord. 

But  in  the  letter  now  before  me  you  say,  "Neither  you 
nor  I,  nor  any  of  the  living  nations,  have  yet  been  gath- 
ered together  in  the  presence  of  the  Judge  ; "  and  hence 
you  infer  that  the  language,  "  before  him  shall  be  gather- 
ed ALL  NATIONS,"  is  Still  futurc  in  its  reference.  In  reply, 
I  need  only  repeat  what  I  stated  in  former  letters,  that 
from  the  4th  to  the  35th  verse  inclusive  of  Matt,  xxiv, 
you  apply  to  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem; 
that  at  verse  14  of  said  chapter,  Jesus  declares  that  the 
gospel  of  the  kingdom  should  be  preached  in  "  all  the 
irorld  for  a  witness  to  all  nations,"  previously  to  said 
destruction  ;  and  that  in  verse  30  he  declares,  that  when 
he  should  come  in  his  glory  with  his  angels,  (Avhich  you 
have  admitted  belongs  to  the  period  of  the  aforesaid  de- 
struction,) "  ALL  THE  TRIBES  of  thc  earth''  should  m.ourn. 
Now,  sir,  if  you  can  conceive  how  the  gospel  was  preached 
"  in  ALL  THK  WORLD  for  a  Avitness  to  all  nations,"  previ- 
ously to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  polity;  or  how  "  all 
THE  TRIBES  of  the  earth''  mourned  when  the  sign  oi the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  appeared  in  heaven — you  surely 
need  not  be  at  a  loss  to  know  how  "  all  nations  "  were 
gathered  before  him  at  the  period  of  his  coming.  Your  dec- 
laration that  this  "  event  has  not  vet  occurred,"  is  unsup- 
ported by  scriptural  authority.  I  affirm  that  Jesus  declar- 
ed it  should  occur  before  the  close  of  the  then  existing  gen- 
eration, during  the  natural  lifetime  of  some  of  his  immedi- 
ate disciples;  and  I  have  adduced  his  explicit  prophecies  in 
proof.  Your  statement  that  "in  the  immortal  resurrection 
state,  there  is  a  state  or  hell  of  endless  misery,"  is  therefore 
groundless,  so  far  as  Matt,  xxv  is  concerned ;  and  the 
common-place  remark  that  the  words  everlasting  and  eter- 
nal, in  the  last  verse  of  that  chapter,  are  the  same  in  the 
original  language  of  our  Saviour,  is  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose—for I  deny  that  either  the  eternal  life  or  everlasting 
punishment  there  mentioned,  pertains  to  the  future  state. 
The  judgment,  in  the  prophetic  relation  of  which  those 
phrases  occur,  was  to  take  place  at  the  coming  of  the  Son 


240  THEOLOGICAL     DISCUSSION. 

of  man.  See  Matt.  xvi.  27.  28.  Compare  Malt.  xxiv.  29, 
30  and  xxv.  31.  And  as  to  the  adjective  everlasting,  the 
Scripture  writers  apply  it,  as  I  have  repeatedly  stated,  to 
the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  to  the  covenant  of  the  law,  and 
to  many  other  things,  which  not  only  had  no  reference  to 
the  future  state,  but  were  temporary  in  their  relations  and 
character. 

I  am  much  pleased  that  you  have  at  last,  after  four  dis- 
tinct and  urgent  solicitations,  introduced  and  briefly  com- 
mented on  2  Thess.  i.  6 — 10.  You  stated  in  your  letter 
of  April  3,  1834,  that  in  your  opinion  said  passage  is  so 
"conclusive  on  the  subject  of  our  controversy,"  that  it 
"must  for  ever  prevent  your  becoming  a  Universalist." 
Desiring  our  readers  to  remember  these  particulars,  I  pro- 
ceed to  notice  your  argument. 

The  persons  to  be  punished  as  staled  in  verse  10,  are 
mentioned  in  verse  6.  "  Seeing  it  is  a  righteous  thing 
with  God  to  recompense  tribulation  to  the}n  that  trouble 
yo7z."  No  other  persons  than  those  who  troubled  the 
Thessalonian  believers,  had,  or  can  have  any  part  or  lot 
in  the  matter  of  the  punishment.  It  is  true  that  those 
believers  suffered  much  at  the  hands  of  some  of  their  own 
countrymen — but  it  is  plain  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  at 
Thessalonica  were  the  instigators  thereof,  as  well  as  the 
principal  persecutors  in  person.  This  is  obvious  from  Acts- 
xvii.  5—9,  and  1  Thess.  ii.  14—16. 

In  endeavouring  to  fix  the  time  ivhen,  you  assume  that 
by  "  the  man  of  sin  "  the  papacy  is  intended.  This  is- 
altogether  gratuitous.  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  mystery  of 
iniquity  "  as  being  already  at  work  when  he  wrote.  He 
declares  that  the  events  by  him  spoken  of  should  occur 
when  the  Lord  Jesus  should  be  revealed  from  heaven — when 
he  should  come,  Luke  xvii.  30,  31,  is  to  the  point.  "Even 
thus  shall  it  be  in  the  day  ivhen  the  Son  of  man  is  revealed. 
In  that  day,  he  which  shall  be  upon  the  house  top,  and 
his  stuff  in  the  house,  let  him  not  come  down  to  lake  it 
away ;  and  he  that  is  in  the  field,  let  him  likewise  not 
return  back."  Similar  directions  are  given  in  Matt.  xxiv. 
15 — 18,  and  in  Luke  xxi.  20—23;  in  all  which  places  the 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  241 

time  of  tribulation  to  Jerusalem  is  obviously  referred  ta 
— "  When  he  shall  come."  See  Matt.  x.  23;  xvi.  27,  28  ; 
xxiv.  29,  30. 

The  persons  signified  by  the  word  who,  and  the  time 
WHEN,  being  thus  settled  by  the  plain  and  unequivocal  tes- 
timony of  the  Bible,  only  two  questions  remain.  Where 
were  they  to  be  punished  ?  You  say,  in  hell — meaning  a 
hell  of  misery  in  the  future  state.  But  Paul  does  not  say 
so.  He  says,  "  who  shall  be  punished  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord."  David  uses  the  following  language : 
"  Whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  ?  If  I  make  my 
bed  in  hell  thou  art  there,"  Psalm  cxxxix.  7,  8.  Cain 
went  out  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  Gen.  iv.  16.  Jonah 
rose  up  to  flee  unto  Tarshish  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  Jonah  i.  3. 

In  solving  this  seeming  difficulty,  we  should  remember 
that  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Bible  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  is  frequently  considered  as  something  located.  The 
Shekinah,  that  dwelt  between  the  cherubims  which 
overshadowed  the  mercy  seat  of  the  altar,  was  under  the 
old  covenant  specially  considered  the  presence  of  the 
Lord.  Hence  said  David,  "  Thou  that  dwellest  between 
the  cherubims,  shine  forth,"  Psalm  Ixxx.  1.  The  land 
of  Judea,  and  particularly  the  temple,  was  by  the  Jews 
considered  the  place  of  God's  peculiar  presence.  Jonah 
^edfrom  the  presence  of  the  Lord  unto  Tarshish,  where 
he  supposed  the  presence  of  the  Lord  was  not.  And 
where  he  believed  the  presence  of  the  Lord  to  be,  we 
learn  from  chap.  ii.  4 :  '"I  am  cast  out  of  thy  sight;  yet 
I  will  look  again  toward  thy  holy  temple.''^  There  dwelt 
the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  there  the  glory  of  his  power 
was  displayed.  And  with  these  facts  in  view  we  already 
perceive  in  what  the  punishment  of  the  persons  men- 
tioned in  2  Thess.  i.  6,  consisted.  It  consisted  in  ever- 
lasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and 
FROM  the  glory  of  his  poicer— that  is,  in  the  overthrow 
of  Jerusalem,  the  consequent  destruction  of  the  temple, 
and  the  ejection  of  the  Jews  from  the  land  of  Judea. 

In  confirmation  of  this  statement,  see  2  Kings  xiii.  23: 
21 


242  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

"  And  the  Lord  was  gracious  unto  them,  and  had  com; 
passion  on  them,  because  of  his  covenant  wilii  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  would  not  destj^oy  them,  neither  cast 
them  from  his  presence  as  yei.-^  This  was  spoken  of  the 
Jews.  God  speaks  of  destroying  them,  and  of  casting 
them  from  his  presence.  What  he  here  says,  that  as 
yet  he  would  not  do  to  this  people,  in  the  following  pas- 
sage we  find  that  he  did.  "  For  through  the  anger  of  the 
Lord,  it  came  to  pass  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah.  until  he 
had  cast  them  out  from  his  prksexce.  that  Zedekiah 
rebelled  against  the  king  of  Babylon,"  2  Kings  xxiv. 
20.  The  same  is  repeated,  Jeremiah  lii.  3.  During  their 
seventy  years  captivity  in  Babylon,  the  Jews  are  said  to 
have  suflfered  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord, 
Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Thessalouians,  speaks  of  the 
same  people,  and  uses  similar  language  in  description  of 
similar  judgments. 

But  you  will  say,  perhaps,  that  Paul  speaks  of  ^'•ever- 
lasting destruction."  True — and  Moses  speaks  of  the 
everlasting  covenant  of  the  law,  and  of  the  everlasting 
priesthood  of  Aaron  ;  and  the  land  of  Canaan  was  prom- 
ised as  an  everlasting  possession  to  the  house  of  Israel. 
Besides,  it  is  written.  Jeremiah  xxiii.  39.  40.  "'  Therefore, 
behold,  I,  even  I,  will  utterly  forget  you,  and  I  will  I'or- 
sake  you.  and  the  city  that  I  gave  you  and  your  fathers, 
and  cast  you  out  of  my  presence;  and  I  will  bring  an 
everlasting  reproach  upon  you.  and  a  perpetual  shame, 
which  shall  not  be  forgotten."  This  everlasting  reproach 
and  perpetual  shame  the  Jewish  people  are  now  experi- 
encing; and  so  also  of  the  everlasting  destruction  men- 
tioned by  Paul. 

In  view  of  the  question,  "In  what  was  the  punish- 
ment to  consist  ?"  you  say — "  I  answer,  in  such  tribula- 
tion as  God  shall  recompense  to  them  ;  in  such  ren- 
geance  as  he  shall  take  on  them."  Very  true ;  and  in 
reference  to  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem,  prior  to  the 
banishment  of  the  Jews  from  Judea,  it  is  written — ''  For 
then  shall  be  great  tribulation,  such  as  was  not  since 
the  beginning  of  the  world  to  this  time,  no,  nor  ever  shal 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  243 

&e,"  Matt.  xxiv.  21.  And  in  reference  to  the  same  pe- 
riod. Ave  find  the  following  record  :  "  Then  let  them 
which  be  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains  ....  for  these 
be  the  days  of  vengeance,  that  all  things  which  are  writ- 
ten may  be  fulfilled  ....  there  shall  be  great  distress 
in  the  land,  and  wrath  upon  this  people.  And  they  shall 
fall  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  shall  be  led  away 
captive  into  all  nations  ;  and  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden 
down  of  the  Gentiles,"  Luke  xxi.  20—24.  Paul,  in 
speaking  of  these  events,  says,  in  addressing  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  '•  For  the  wrath  is  come  [rather  is  coming — 
Macknight,  Hammond,  and  others.]  upon  them  to  the 
UTTERMOST,"  1  Thcss.  ii.  16. 

I  need  not  add  any  thing  further,  at  present,  on  the 
passage  in  question.  You  may  perhaps  assert  that  my 
scriptural  exposition  of  the  subject  is  "  strained,  unnat- 
ural and  ridiculous;"  and  perhaps  you  may  deem  a 
"  smile  "  a  sufficient  reply  to  what  I  have  written.  Such 
procedure  would  undoubtedly  excite  some  prejudice 
as^ainst  your  correspondent,  and  against  the  doctrine  of 
which  he  is  an  advocate,  in  the  minds  of  some  of  our 
readers — but,  in  my  judgment,  an  attempt  on  your  part 
to  overthrow  my  conclusions  by  Bible  testimony,  would 
more  effectually  subserve  the  interests  of  truth,  and  better 
comport  with  just  ideas  of  controversial  equity  between 
man  and  man. 

Afiectionately  yours,  &c. 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 

Philadelphia,  March  5,  1835. 
Dear  Sir— I  have  now  published  your  last  letter,  which 

1  believe  is  one  more  on  your  side  of  the  controversy 
than  on  my  own.  I  shall  here  desist  from  all  further 
regular  correspondence,  because  I  expect  soon  to  start  for 

2  journey  of  two  months  at  the  least,  and  all  my  time 


244  THEOLOGICAL    DISCDSSIOIf. 

before  my  departure  will  be  required  in  preparation. 
Your  letters  in  The  Philadelphian  are  sufficient  fo  show 
my  readers  what  is  the  present  scheme  of  Universal 
Salvation,  and  what  are  the  chief  arguments  by  which 
it  is  supported:  my  letters,  published  in  many  of  your 
papers,  (to  the  editors  of  which  I  make  my  respectful 
•acknowledgements,)  will  show  all  who  read  them  the 
principal  scriptural  arguments  which  are  adduced  in 
proof  that  some  of  the  human  family  will  be  punished 
with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  and  the  glory  of  his  power. 

On  the  score  of  politeness  you  have  the  advantage  of 
me,  for  you  very  complaisantly  feel  confident  that  I  am 
sure  of  reaching  heaven :  you  are  satisfied  also  of  the 
final  salvation  of  all  whom  you  style  Partialisis  ;  while 
i  am  compelled  to  say,  that  I  have  personally  known  but 
a  very  few  Universalists  who  were  persons  of  good 
moral  character;  and  I  verily  believe  there  is  no  device 
of  the  devil  so  well  calculated  to  blind  men  to  their 
ruin,  and  harden  them  against  all  the  admonitions  of 
heavenly  wisdom,  as  your  scheme  of  universal  holiness 
and  happiness,  resulting  merely  from  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  to  a  state  of  immortal  existence. 

That  our  discussion  should  thus  close,  without  any 
unfriendly  personal  litigation,  is  to  me  a  matter  of  satis- 
faction. 

I  pray  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  while  you 
beg  me  to  be  assured  of  everlasting  bliss  beyond  the 
resurrection. 

Yours  respectfully, 

EZRA  STILES  ELY. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  March  13,  1835. 
Dear  Sir — I  find  on  examination  that  as  many  letters 
of  argumentation  have  appeared  on  your  side  of  the 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  245 

controversy  as  on  mine.  Your  last,  and  it  would  seem 
Jinal,  communication  is  not  of  a  controversial  character, 
yet  it  demands  a  reply — to  the  publication  of  which  I 
think  1  am  entitled.  I  desire  to  assure  you,  however, 
that  I  care  little  about  having  the  last  word,  so  bng  as  I 
can  be  satisfied,  as  I  am  at  present,  that  I  have  had  the 
last  argument. 

I  regret  exceedingly  that  you  have  determined  to  "  de- 
sist from  all  further  regular  correspondence."  I  have 
enjoyed  not  a  little  satisfaction  in  knowing  that  the 
readers  of  The  Philadelphian  were  in  a  fair  way  of 
becoming  measurably  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of 
TJniversalism.  I  have  even  been  sometimes  encouraged 
to  hope,  that  my  learned  and  respected  correspondent 
would  himself  be  brought  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
and  become  an  advocate  of  the  faith  he  has  vainly  at- 
tempted to  destroy.  And  my  regret  in  being  certified 
that  the  discussion  on  your  part  is  closed,  is  increased  by 
the  consideration,  that  neither  you  nor  your  readers  have 
yet  had  more  than  a  glimpse  of  the  scriptural  arguments 
in  proof  of  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  man- 
kind. The  few  passages  by  me  introduced  and  com- 
mented upon  in  this  discussion,  were  only  specimens  of 
the  precious  testimonies  of  Holy  Writ.  The  treasury  is 
full.  The  riches  of  Christ  are  unsearchable.  Most  fer- 
vently  do  I  desire  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  height, 
and  length,  and  depth,  and  breadth  of  the  love  of  Christ 
which  passeth  knowledge,  that  you  might  be  filled  with 
all  the  fulness  of  God  ! 

It  appears  to  me  that  your  contemplated  absence  of 
two  months  is  not  a  suflBcient  excuse  for  discontinuing 
the  discussion  in  its  present  condition.  In  endeavouring 
to  establish  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  you 
liave  cited  a  multitude  of  passages;  and  to  your  argu- 
ments thereupon  1  have  given  respectful  and  serious  at 
tenlion.  And  it  does  not  seem  to  comport  with  received 
ideas  of  equity  between  man  and  man,  that  I  should  be 
debarred  the  privilege  (not  to  say  the  right)  of  appearing 
in  the  columns  of  The  Philadelphian  in  proclamation 
21* 


246  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

nnd  defence  of  Universalism.  Besides:  your  rejoinders 
would  be  faithfully  and  punctually  copied  into  nine  or 
ten  Universalist  papers,  and  in  this  way  you  would  be 
more  likely  than  in  any  other  to  reach  the  numerous  be- 
lievers of  the  doctrine,  and  peradventure  deliver  some  of 
them  from  what  you  consider  a  most  ruinous  ' '  device  of 
the  devil."  You  could  not  ask,  you  cannot  conceive,  a 
more  favourable  opportunity  than  is  here  presented,  for 
exposing  the  falsity  and  the  blinding  and  hardening  in- 
fluence of  Universalism.  Were  you  to  receive  informa- 
tion that  an  island  had  been  discovered,  the  thousands  of 
whose  inhabitants  were  going  headlong  to  perdition,  you 
would  be  among  the  first  to  present  their  deplorable  case 
to  the  friends  of  missions.  And  were  you  to  be  assured 
that  those  inhabitants  were  not  only  willing  but  desirous 
to  listen  to  the  gospel  testimony  as  you  understand  it, 
you  would  insist  upon  the  immediate  selection  of  a  suit- 
able missionary.  And  yet,  when  thirty  thousand  Uni- 
versalists  are  anxious  to  hear  what  you  have  to  say  on 
the  passages  I  might  cite  in  proof  of  the  ultimate  recon- 
ciliation of  all  things  to  God,  you  plead  a  projected  ab- 
sence of  two  months  as  a  sufficient  excuse  for  discon- 
tinuing the  discussion  !  Can  it  be  possible  that  you  fully 
realize  the  awful  responsibility  to  which  you  so  fre- 
quently refer?  Are  you  sure  that  you  could  stand  be- 
fore the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  dead,  and  say,  "  I  em- 
braced every  favourable  opportunity  to  convert  the  Uni- 
versalists  from  the  error  of  their  ways  ?"  But  I  will  not 
enlarge  on  this  subject.  Your  own  sense  of  religious 
obligation  will  haunt  you  with  the  reflection,  that  you 
have  failed  in  the  performance  of  your  solemn  duty  as 
an  anointed  servant  of  the  Most  High  God. 

You  concede  that  I  have  the  advantage  of  you  on  the 
score  of  politeness.  You  are  right — and  I  feel  happy  in 
being  enabled  to  inform  you,  that  the  advantasfe  referred 
10  is  given  to  me  by  the  doctrine  I  profess.  You  are  my 
brother.  As  such  I  love  you.  I  behold  in  you  an  heir 
of  immortal  blessedness.  I  contidently  pypect  to  meet 
you  in  a  world  of  holiness,  there  to  embrace  you  in  the 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  247 

fulness  of  love  divine.  You  and  I  will  there  behold  and 
adore  the  glories  of  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  and  min- 
gle our  praises  with  the  hallelujahs  of  the  redeemed  of 
the  Lord.  The  thought  is  ineffably  glorious  and  sub- 
lime 1  We  have  one  Father  and  one  Redeemer — and 
vi^hy  should  I  treat  you  otherwise  than  as  a  broiher? 

I  am  sorry  that  you  thought  proper  to  say,  in  your 
closing  letter,  that  you  "have  personally  known  hut  a 
very  few  Universal ists  who  were  persons  of  good  mon:l 
character."  I  might  say,  with  equal  propriety,  that  I 
have  personally  known  but  a  very  few  Presbyterians 
who  were  persons  of  good  moral  character.  The  truth 
is,  your  personal  acquaintance  with  Universalists  is  as 
limited  as  is  mine  with  the  Presbyterians;  and  unbiassed 
readers  w^ill  at  once  perceive  the  impropriety  of  impliedly 
denouncing  an  entire  denomination  of  Christians,  on  the 
ground  of  a  personal  acquaintance  with  a  very  few  of  its 
members.  Besides:  the  question  at  issue  has  been,  not 
what  is  the  general  moral  character  of  either  Universal- 
ists or  Partialists,  hut  '"  Does  the  Bible  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  punishment  ?"  I  am  sensible  that  Uni- 
versalists are  not  a  whit  better  than  they  ought  to  be; 
and  I  suppose  you  might  safely  say  as  much  of  the  Pres- 
byterians. But  w^hen  we  are  investi:ratin2:  a  fjuestion 
pertaining  to  doctrinal  truth,  the  topic  of  relative  moral 
character  is  irrelevant  to  the  point  in  debate. 

I  cordially  unite  in  your  expression  of  satisfaction 
that  our  controversy  should  close  without  any  unfriendly 
personal  litigation. 

In  closing  this  communication,  I  desire  to  mention 
that  I  propose  to  continue  this  discussion  in  a  series  of 
letters  addressed  to  you,  as  heretofore.  My  object  in  so 
doing  is,  to  present  my  scriptural  arguments  in  proof  of 
the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  mankind.  I  am 
perfectly  satisfied  that  the  arguments  to  be  thus  adduced, 
will  be  of  an  incontrovertible  character;  and  this  con- 
sideration gives  me  some  encouragement  to  hope  that 
you  will  yet  be  induced  to  take  up  the  cross,  and  bw- 


\ 


948  THEOLOGICAL    DtSCCSSION. 

come  an  efficient  advocate  of  "  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints." 

Affectionately  yours, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  June  19,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — Previously  to  presenting  the  scriptural  argu- 
ment in  proof  of  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all 
mankind,  I  feel  at  liherty  to  devote  one  communication 
to  some  general  remarks,  in  the  form  of  a  review. 

And  I  begin  by  commending  your  practical  disregard  of 
a  principle  of  policy  by  which  the  mass  of  your  brethren 
in  the  faith  of  endless  punishment  have  hitherto  been 
governed.  Your  acquaintance  with  the  "sayings  and 
doings"  of  the  several  prominent  sects  in  Christendom, 
niust  long  since  have  satisfied  you,  that  the  Universalists 
ajiariously  desire  a  thoruugh  investigation  of  the  merits  of 
ihe  doctrine  they  profess.  The  use  of  our  meeting-houses,  as 
you  very  v/ell  know,  has  frequently  and  urgently  been 
tendered  to  the  opposers  of  the  sentiment  in  which  v/e 
rejoice;  and  the  columns  and  pages  of  our  periodical 
publications  have  ever  been  open  to  the  controversial 
communications  of  the  opponents  of  our  faith.  You  are 
aware  that  these  evidences  of  our  disposition  to  "  try  the 
spirits  whether  they  are  of  God,"  have  seldom  been  so 
regarded  as  to  induce  a  compliance  with  our  respectful 
solicitations ;  and  you  are  also  aware,  that  it  has  been 
ihe  general  policy  of  the  Partialists  to  avoid  and  discour- 
age all  direct  discussion  with  the  Universalists.  You,  sir 
are  an  honourable  exception.  In  consenting  to  discuss  a 
conjoint  question  in  reference  to  the  final  destination  ol 
man,  you  acted  consistently.  You  faithfully  re-published 
the  epistles  of  your  correspondent;  and  though  you  ab- 
ruptly closed  the  discussion,  thus  excluding  my  proofs  ol 
CBiversalism   from  the  columns  of  The  Philadelphian,  I 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  S49 

neartily  thank  and  commend  you  for  having  engaged  in 
the  coiuroversy,  and  for  having  so  long  continued  to  pre- 
sent iny  letters  to  the  readers  of  your  paper. 

In  repeatedly  citing  scriptural  passages  in  a  way  which 
intimated  that  I  either  denied  the  doctrine  they  teach,  or 
was  ignorant  of  their  existence  ;  in  likening  me  to  a 
malefactor  on  his  way  to  the  gallows;  in  stating  that  in 
your  judgment  I  "have  no  superior  on  earth"  in  the  mat- 
ter of  "  perverting  Scripture  by  Scripture;"  in  pronounc- 
ing some  of  my  expositions  ridiculous  and  absurd,  with- 
out attempting  to  show  wherein  ; — in  these  particulars, 
and  in  a  few  others,  to  which  I  need  not  refer,  you  treated 
your  correspondent  with  much  disrespect;  yet,  on  the 
whole,  your  demeanour  in  our  controversy  was  fully  as 
courteous  as  the  principles  of  your  doctrine  would  allow, 
and  rather  more  so  than  many  of  your  brethren  appeared 
to  approve.  And  as  you  have  conceded  that  I  have  the 
advantage  of  you  on  the  score  of  politeness — (which  ad- 
vantage I  have  already  desired  you  to  place  to  the  credit 
of  Universalism,)  I  am  disposed  to  accept  that  concession 
as  a  sufficient  apology  for  your  occasional  incivility.  Per- 
mit me  to  add,  that  I  have  long  entertained  an  exalted' 
opinion  of  your  character  and  talents  ;  and  I  hope  ever 
to  esteem  and  love  you  as  a  brother  in  the  human  race, 
however  much  in  darkness  1  may  suppose  you  to  be. 

In  styling  Universalism  "  a  most  ruinous  device  of  the 
devil;"  in  classing  it  with  Atheism,  Deism,  and  Roman- 
ism ;  and  in  using  other  oflensive  terms  when  speaking 
thereof,  you  manifested  a  spirit  which  in  the  calm  hours 
of  reflection  you  must  certainly  condemn  ;  and  in  view 
of  your  implied  aspersions  of  the  moral  and  religious 
character  of  the  denomination  of  Universalists,  you  can- 
not avoid  deploring  the  indiscretion  of  your  zeal.  You 
have  implicitly  stated  that  we  "  desire  to  believe  a  differ- 
ent doctrine  than  that  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  in- 
spiration ;"  and  thougli  you  have  very  charitably  conceded 
that  there  are  some  upright  men  among  us,  you  declare 
that  you  have  '"personally  kno\\^  l)ut  a  very  few  Uni- 
versalists who  w^ere  persons  of  good  moral  character !" 


250  '  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

The  former  statement  involves  tlie  charge  of  gross  hy- 
pocrisy, and  the  latter  of  general  iniquity.  Be  sure,  you 
do  not  SO}/  that  Universalists  gcncrallij  are  vile  persons  ; 
and  i  am  aware  that  such  is  not  the  grammatical  import 
of  your  language.  And  I  will  add,  that  if  to  the  declara- 
tion specially  commented  upon,  you  had  appended  the 
remark,  that  your  personal  acquaintance  with  Universal- 
ists has  ever  heen  limited  to  a  very  few  members  of  the 
denomination,  the  aspersion  would  have  been  so  effectu- 
ally nullified  as  to  have  displayed  but  the  blindness  of 
the  spirit  by  which  it  was  dictated  Nevertheless,  the 
statement,  as  it  stands  in  your  letter,  was  calculated  (I 
will  not  say  designed)  to  perpetuate  the  influence  of  an 
unwarranted,  unrighteous  prejudice  against  the  denomi- 
nation to  which  I  belong.  As  a  friend  and  a  brother,  I  be- 
seech you  to  avoid  such  occasions  of  offence  in  the  fu- 
ture; and  while  you  continue  zealously  to  oppose  what- 
ever you  deem  erroneous  in  doctrine,  carefully  avoid  im- 
pugning the  motives,  and  sedulously  guard  against  as- 
persing the  moral  and  religious  character  of  your  oppo- 
nents. 

In  reviewing  the  plan  of  argumentation  by  you  adopt- 
ed, I  find  little  to  commend.  It  is  undeniable  that  you 
evinced  much  talent  and  tact  in  endeavouring  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  You  adduced 
as  strong  evidence  in  proof  of  that  doctrine  as  any  man 
can  furnish  from  the  sacred  oracles  ;  and  your  reasoning 
was  frequently  plausible,  and  your  conclusions  seemingly 
just.  Nevertheless,  in  my  judgment,  you  did  not  adduce 
a  single  sound  argument  in  proof  of  the  dogma  of  end- 
less torment.  You  seldom  attempted  to  show  that  the 
scriptural  passages  by  you  introduced,  have  reference  to 
the  future  state;  and  whenever  I  specially  called  your  at- 
tention to  this  radical  defect  in  your  argument,  you  either 
maintained  a  discourteous  silence,  offered  some  reasons 
predicated  of  vour  opinion,  or  consented  to  leave  the  mat- 
ter to  the  judgment  of  our  readers  !  I  am  not  versed  in 
the  logic  of  the  schools — but  to  my  mind  it  is  manifest 
that  the  testimony  must  be  equivalent  to  the  declara 


THEOLOGICAL    DlSCt^SSIOX.  251 

tion  ;  and  if  the  testimony  be  not  to  the  point,  it  must  be 
set  aside. 

When  you  cited  the  closinc:  pnrt  of  Malt,  xxv,  I  staled 
that  the  citation  is  the  conclusion  of  a  discourse  Avhich 
commences  at  the  fourth  verse  of  chap,  xxiv  ;  that  much 
of  tiie  discourse  treats  of  events  pertalninir  to  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  ;  and  that  unless  you  could  prove 
a  transition  of  reference  from  things  temporal  to  tilings 
incorruptible,  the  citation  was  not  pertinent.  In  reply, 
you  conceded  that  from  the  fourth  verse  to  the  35th  inclu- 
sive of  Matt,  xxiv,  events  connected  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  are  pointed  out  and  dilated  upon  ;  and 
that  at  verse  3G,  there  is  a  transition  of  reference  to  a  day 
of  future  general  judgment.  In  my  rejoinder,  I  stated 
that  Matt.  xxiv.  36—41,  and  Luke  xvii.  20— 3»),  are  par- 
allel passages  ;  and  that  as  the  latter  obviously  referred 
to  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  such  must 
also  be  the  reference  of  the  former.  You  plainly  per- 
ceived that  to  admit  said  parilkl  would  prove  the  over- 
throw of  your  entire  argument ;  and  so  you  denied  it — 
because  in  the  one  case  Jesus  was  addressing  his  disciples, 
and  in  the  other  the  Pharisrcs  !  This  pretence  availed  you 
nothing — for  I  furnished  you  the  express  testimony  that 
Jesus  was  addressing  his  disciples  in  both  cases.  Instead 
of  acknowledging  your  error,  and  making  such  admis- 
sions as  said  acknowledgment  would  involve,  you  ollered 
no  remark  thereupon  ;  and  subsequently  rebuked  me  for 
assuming  that  you  had  yielded  the  point  I 

I  might  refer  to  many  examples  of  like  tenor,  in  which 
the  radical  defect  of  your  reasoning  is  equally  apparent, 
and  in  which  also  the  irrelevant  character  of  the  proofs 
you  presented  is  clearly  evolved.  Space,  however,  will 
allow  me  to  notice  but  one  other  case. 

Having  assumed  that  the  account  of  the  rich  man  and 
Lazarus  is  "Christ's  statement  of  some  events  of  which 
ne  had  perfect  knowledge,"  you  proceeded  to  interpret 
parts  of  it  parahnhrnlhj.  When  the  propriety  of  this 
course  was  called  in  question,  you  resorted  to  sophistical 
(xmpariwn,  ("which  is  the  curse  of  logic ;)  and  wh«n  the 


282  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

fallacy  of  your  premises  and  arguments  was  pomied  out, 
you  neglected  to  reply  !  You  indeed  pronounced  my  par- 
aphrase of  the  suhjeci  "  strained,  unnatural,  and  ridicu- 
lous ;"  stated  that  a  smile  was  a  sufficient  answer  there- 
to ;  and  closed  your  remarks  with  a  profane yo/ic  /  But 
all  this  was  as  destitute  of  argument  as  it  was  discord- 
ant with  the  serious  nature  of  the  subject.  It  contained 
no  proof  that  the  account  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  is 
a  historical  relation — which  position  being  neither  es- 
tablished by  you  nor  conceded  by  me,  all  your  inferences 
therefrom  are  null  and  void. 

I  will  add,  that  the  paracolic  character  of  the  entire  re 
lation  in  question,  is  conceded  by  Scott,  Gill,  Henry, 
John  Brown,  McKnight,  Whitby,  Campbell,  Burkitt, 
Doddridge,  Horne,  Lightfoot,  Hammond,  Tillotsok, 
Newcome,  and  others.  And  I  desire  you  to  remember, 
that  in  contending  for  the  historical  view  of  the  rich  man 
and  Lazarus,  you  stand  in  opposition  to  the  best  com- 
mentators the  world  has  ever  produced — several  of  whom 
have  long  been  considered  oracles  in  the  church  of  which 
you,  sir,  are  so  prominent  and  active  a  member. 

There  are  other  important  particulars  in  our  amicable 
discussion  which  I  should  be  pleased  to  notice  ;  but  an 
aversion  to  prolixity  admonishes  me  to  forbear.  I  will 
therefore  only  subjoin,  that,  in  my  judgment,  you  totally 
failed  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  endless  wo;  and  I  ex- 
ceedingly regret  that  your  life  should  be  devoted  to  the 
promulgation  of  a  sentiment,  which  not  only  constitutes 
no  part  of  the  revelation  from  God,  but  is  destructive  of 
the  peace  and  the  happiness  of  man. 

Yours  respectfully, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  June  22,  1835. 
Timi  Sir-  Inasmuch  as  any  doctrine  which  cannot  be 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  253 

fairly  established  by  a  few  pertinent  citations  from  the 
sacred  oracles  is,  in  my  judgment,  unwortliy  to  be  con- 
sidered a  pari  ot'  the  Clirisiian  credenda,  the  scriptural 
passages  which  I  shall  adduce  in  proof  of  the  tinal  holi- 
ness and  happiness  of  all  mankind  will  not  be  nuujerous, 
though  I  am  entirely  satisfied  they  will  be  found  to  stand, 
as  does  the  faith  of  the  Uiiiversalist,  "  nut  in  the  wisdom 
of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God." 

In  Gen.  xxii.  18,  we  find  it  recorded,  as  the  language 
of  the  Lord  to  Abraham,  '•  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  be  blessed."  In  the  same  promise 
conlirmed  to  Jacob,  it  is  written.  Gen.  xxviii.  14,  "  In 
thee  aiid  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
be  blessed."  And  when  cited  by  Peter,  in  Acts  iii.  25, 
it  is  on  this  wise — ''In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of 
the  earth  be  blessed."  Paul,  in  Gal.  iii,  terms  this  prom- 
ise the  gospel  :  "'  And  the  Scripture,  I'oreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before 
the  gospel  to  Abraham,  saying.  In  thee  shall  all  nations 
be  blessed."  And  he  adds—"'  Now  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not,  and  to 
seeds,  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed,  ichich 
is  Christy 

In  the  light  of  these  concurrent  testimonies  we  discov- 
er, that  the  eventual  blessedness  in  Chri-t  of  all  the  na- 
tions, families  and  kindreds  of  the  earth,  is  guarantied 
by  the  promise  of  the  Almighty,  who  •'  is  not  a  man  that 
he  should  lie,  neither  the  son  of  man  that  he  should  re- 
pent. Hath  he  said,  and  shall  he  not  do  it?  or  hath  he 
spoken,  and  shall  he  not  make  it  good?"  Numbers  xxiii. 
19.  Moreover,  "When  God  made  promise  to  Abraham, 
because  he  could  swear  by  no  greater,  he  sware  by  him- 
self ....  For  men  verily  swear  by  the  greater ;  and  an 
oath  for  confirmation  is  to  them  an  end  of  all  strife. 
Wherein  God,  willing  more  abundantly  to  show  unto  the 
heirs  of  promise  the  immutability  of  his  counsel,  confiim- 
ed  it  by  an  oath  :  that  by  two  immutable  things,  in  which 
it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  we  might. have  a  strong 
22 


254  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

consolation,  who  hare  fled  for  refuge  to  lay  hold  upon  the 
hope  set  before  us,"  Heb.  vi.  13 — 18. 

Tiiai  the  language  of  the  promise  conveys  the  idea  of 
univcrsali'y.  yi'U  will  not  be  inclined  to  dispute — inas- 
much as  no  individual  can  be  found  who  belongs  not  to 
some  nation,  family,  or  kindred.  In  the  angelic  annun- 
ciation of  the  advent  of  Messias,  the  truth  of  such  ti- 
dings as  embrace  the  final  blessedness  of  all  our  race,  is 
implied  :  "  Fear  not :  for  behold  I  bring  you  good  tidin<rs 
of  great  joy.  Avhich  shall  be  to  all  people^''  Luke  ii.  lU. 
Indeed  good  news,  or  glad  tidings,  is  the  literal  import 
of  the  term  gospel — and,  as  before  shown.  Paul  thus  de- 
nom mates  the  preaching  of  the  Lord  to  "  faithful  Abra- 
ham."' 

In  what  way  will  you  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of 
this  testimony  in  proof  of  the  final  holiness  and  happi- 
ness of  all  mankind  ? 

Should  you  allege  that  the  blessedness  indicated  in  the 
promise  was  to  be  enjoyed  through  faith,  and  that  as 
faith  is  not  exercised  by  all  the  nations,  families  and 
kindreds  of  the  earth,  so  the  prospect  of  universal  bless- 
edness in  Christ  is  an  illusion — this  is  my  reply  : 

1st.  The  promise  is  the  thing  to  be  believed,  and  as 
such  is  either  true  or  false.  If  it  be  false,  no  one  can 
justly  be  required  to  believe  it ;  and  if  true,  its  verity 
cannot  be  affected  either  by  the  faith  or  disbelief  of  man. 
Your  argument  virtually  involves  the  absurdity,  that 
faith  creates  the  object  of  faith — in  other  words,  that  the 
promise  which  we  are  required  to  believe  is  not  true  until 
we  believe  it !  The  promise  in  question  is  either  abso- 
lute or  conditional.  If  it  be  absolute^  the  doctrine  of 
universal  salvation  is  clearly  established  thereby  ;  if  it 
he  conditional,  consistency  requires  an  acknowledgment 
of  the  aforesaid  absurdity.  If  you  deny  that  the  promise 
is  the  thing  to  be  believed,  I  remaik,  (1.)  That  witti 
equal  propriety  you  might  deny  that  the  gospel  is  tbi 
thiiig  to  be  believed — for  when  God  made  promise  to 
Abi^ham,  he  preached  the  gospel,  saying,  in  thee  shall 
all  nations  be  blessed,   Gal.  iii.  8.    (2.)  The  gospel  was 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSTON.  255 

t/huf5  preached,  that  the  heathen  might  he  justified 
through  faith.  Faith  in  what?  Certainly  in  the  doc- 
trine preiiclied.  And  will  you  contend  that  any  man 
can  he  justified  by  faith  in  that  which  is  not  true  before 
it  is  believed? 

2d.  It  is  written,  "  They  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  fiiithfiil  Abraham,"  Gal.  iii.  9.  How  was  Abra- 
ham blessed  ?  Plainly  in  believing  that  in  his  seed  all 
the  nations,  families  and  kindreds  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed.  His  blessedness  was  consequent  of  faiih  in 
jcniversal  blessedness — and  the  presupposition  is,  that 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  was  not.  in  any  sense,  de- 
pendent on  the  exercise  of  faith  by  him.  And  as  they 
who  believe  the  same  gospel  are  blessed  in  like  manner, 
it  follows  that  the  alleged  conditionality  of  the  promise 
is  based  in  error. 

Jesus  said,  "  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day  :  and  he 
saw  it,  and  was  glad,"  John  viii.  56.  He  saw  it  by  faith  ; 
and  the  righteousness  of  his  faith  was  predicated  of 
the  absolute  charf.cter  of  the  promise  which  announced 
the  coming  of  the  Saviour. 

In  L  John  v.  9 — 11,  we  read  as  follows  :  "  If  we  receive 
the  witness  of  men,  the  Avitness  of  God  is  greater :  for 
this  is  the  witness  of  God  which  he  hath  testified  of  his 
Son.  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the 
witness  in  himself:  he  that  believeth  not  God  hath  made 
him  a  liar ;  because  he  believeth  not  the  record  that  God 
gave  of  his  Son.  And  this  is  the  record,  that  God  hath 
given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son."  It  is 
the  province  of  a  witness  to  make  that  known  which  is 
already  true^  and  by  disbelieving  his  testimony  we  im- 
peach his  veracity.  Now  the  record  of  God  is,  simply, 
that  he  has  siven  us  eternal  life  in  his  Son  ;  and  the  fact 
that  the  unbeliever,  by  not  accrediting:  the  record,  makes 
God  a  liar,  (that  is,  impeaches  the  Divine  veracity)  proves 
that  God  ha^  given  eternal  life  to  the  unbeliever.  The 
gift  is  absolute — "for  what  if  some  did  not  believe? 
shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  [rather  faithfulness]  of 
God  without  effect  ?     God  forbid  :  yea,  let  God  be  true, 


256  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

but  every  man  a  liar,"  Rom.  iii.  3,  4.  It  is  written, 
''  for  God  hath  concluded  all  in  unbelief,  that  he  might 
have  mercy  upon  all,"  Rom.  xi.  32.  And  in  view  of 
this  glorious  object,  most  heartily  can  the  true  disciple 
exclaim,  "  O  the  depth  of  the  riches,  both  of  the  wisdom 
and  knowledge  of  God  !  .  .  .  .  For  o/him,  and  through 
him,  and  to  him,  are  all  things:  to  whom  be  glory  for 
ever.     Amen." 

I  feel  no  disposition  to  deny  that  conditions  are  append  • 
ed  to  many  Divine  testimonies — such,  for  example,  as  the 
following  :  "  If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient,  ye  shall  eat 
the  good  of  the  land  ;  but  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel,  ye  shall 
be  devoured  with  the  sword :  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 
hath  sp;)ken  it,"  Isaiah  i.  19,20.  And  I  also  hold,  that 
while  the  promise  of  universal  blessedness  in  Christ  is 
absolute,  our  present  happiness  is,  in  a  great  measure, 
dependent  on  the  hearty  acknowledgment  of  the  truth 
Nevertheless,  should  every  soul  of  our  race  live  and  die 
in  total  ignorance  of  the  prtmiise  in  question,  the  ultimate 
purpose  of  the  Almighty  would  not  be  defeated  thereby. 
And  I  am  satisfied  that  this  statement  is  fully  sustained 
by  the  arguments  already  presented. 

In  2  Cor.  i.  18—20,  Paul  writes  as  follows  :  "  But  as 
God  is  true,  our  word  toward  you  was  not  yea  and  nay. 
For  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  preached 
among  you  by  us.  even  by  me  and  Sylvanus  and  Timo- 
theus,  was  not  yea  and  nay,  but  in  him  was  yea.  For 
all  the  promises  of  God  in  him  are  yea,  and  in  him 
Amen,  unto  the  glory  of  God  by  us."  Now,  sir,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  thalt  your  doctrine  of  conditions  to  be  per- 
formed by  the  creature,  contradicts  the  spirit  of  this 
sacred  Scripture.  You  affirm,  in  effect,  that  if  the  promi- 
ses be  believed  they  will  be  yea;  but  if  disbelieved  they 
will  be  nay.  So,  instead  of  averring  with  the  apostle, 
that  all  the  promises  of  God  in  Christ  are  yea  and  Amen, 
you  virtually  contend  that  they  are  either  yea  or  nay, 
according  to  the  faith  or  disbelief  of  man  !  Your  doc- 
trine of  conditions  goes  farther  than  this  :  It  involves  the 
Atheistical  groundf  that  tiie  Divine  promises  are  neither 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  257 

yea  nor  nay^  until  they  are  either  acknowledged  or  de- 
nied ! 

Jesus  said,  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  unto  me,"  John  xii.  32.  In  this  lan- 
guage our  Lord  does  not  intimate  that  he  would  draw 
those  only  to  himself  who  in  after  times  should  believe 
in  his  name;  but  he  states,  positively,  that  he  would 
draw  all  men  unto  him,  if  he  should  be  lifted  up  from  the 
earth.  So  soon  as  the  condition  was  performed,  the  dec- 
laration was  numbered  with  the  promises  of  the  Lord, 
which  are  yea  and  Amen. 

The  language  of  the  Almighty  to  Abraham,  is  abso- 
lute and  unequivocal.  No  conditions  are  expressed — no 
conditions  are  implied.  "  In  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall 
all  the  nations,  families  and  kindreds  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  The  thing  promised  is  clearly  expressed  ;  and 
unquestionably  the  Lord  has  at  his  disposal  all  the  means 
which  are  essential  to  the  fulfilment  of  his  purpose.  I 
am  "  fully  persuaded  that  what  he  has  promised  he  is  able 
also  to  perform;"  and  consequently  1  "stagger  not  at 
the  promise  of  God  through  unbelief,"  but  am  "strong  in 
faith,  giving  glory  to  God."  Sin  indeed  abounds — but 
grace  abounds  much  more  than  sin,  Rom.  v.  20,  Unbe- 
lief prevails — nevertheless  "he  is  faithful  who  promised," 
Heb,  X.  23.  Men  are  in  bondage — but  "  the  creation 
itself  also  shall  he  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  cor- 
ruption into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God," 
Rom.  viii.  21. 

In  the  Scriptures  which  treat  of  the  immortal  condi- 
tion of  man,  the  thing  to  be  accomplished  is  as  clearly 
stated  as  heart  can  desire  it  to  be  ;  and  that  the  Supreme 
Being,  either  mediately  or  immediately,  will  accomplish 
the  work  in  his  own  time  and  way,  is  a  prominent  doc- 
trine of  Divine  revelation.  The  serpent's  head  will  be 
bruised,  yea,  the  devil  and  all  his  works  will  be  destroy- 
ed— but  not  by  man.  The  enterprise  wijl  be  accomplished 
by  the  seed  of  the  woman,  the  Son  of  Gou,  Gen.  iii.  15 ; 
Heb.  ii.  14;  1  John  iii.  8.  "  The  dead  shall  be  raised 
incorruptible" — but  not  by  the  power  of  man.  The  ener- 
22* 


258  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

s'les  of  the  quickening  spirit  of  the  Most  High,  will 
clothe  us  upon  with  immortalitv,  that  mortality  may  be 
swallowed  up  of  life.  Death  will  be  swallowed  up  in 
victory,  and  tears  will  be  wiped  from  ofif  all  faces — but 
not  by  man.  "The  Lord  of  hosts  ....  will  swal- 
low up  death  in  victory ;  and  the  Lord  God  will  wipe 
away  tears  from  off  all  faces,"  Isaiah  xxv.  8.  In  these 
passages,  and  in  others  of  correspondent  tenor,  every 
thing^essential  to  the  final  blessedness  of  all  our  race,  is 
clearly  pointed  out;  and  the  eye  of  faith  is  directed  to 
the  Almighty,  as  the  being  by  whose  power  the  glorious 
consummation  will  be  effected.  So,  when  the  Lord 
preached  the  gospel  to  Abraham,  he  promised  no  more 
than  he  was  abundantly  able  and  definitely  determined 
to  perform.  He  clearly  perceived  what  difficulties,  if 
^ny,  would  arise  ;  and  wisely  adapting  his  means  to  the 
production  of  the  end  he  dcsio^ned,  the  work  is  being 
prosecuted  in  the  manner  which  seemeth  good  in  his 
sight:  and  the  issue  will  prove  the  righteousness  of  the 
faith  of  the  "  Friend  of  God." 

Yours  respectfully, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  June  25,  1835. 

Dear  Sir— In  1  Timothy  ii.  4—6,  Paul  declares,  that 
God  our  Saviour  ivill  have  -zavrai  avQp'ii-nov^  all  men  to  be 
saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For 
there  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between  God  and 
men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom 
iTTcp  ravrojv  for  all,  to  bc  testified  in  due  time. 

Previously  to  offering  any  comments  of  my  own  on  this 
explicit  testimony,  I  will  direct  your  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing remarks  "by  Dr.  Whitby,  whose  general  ortho- 
doxy you  will  not  be  disposed  to  dispute.     He  says  : 

"  These  verses  contain  several  convincing  arguments 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  259^ 

that  God  wills  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  particular,  and 
that  Christ  thus  died  for  all.  For,  1.  The  apostle  here 
enjoins  us  to  pray  for  all  men,  because  God  will  have  alt 
men  to  be  saved.  Now  it  is  unquestionably  the  Christian's 
duty,  and  was  the  constant  practice  of  the  church,  to  pray 
for  all  men  in  particular ;  and  therefore  the  reason  here 
assigned  of  this  duty  must  reach  to  all  men  in  particular. 
2.  The  apostle  reasons  thus  :  God  loill  have  all  men  to  he 
saved,  because  he  is  the  God  of  all,  the  common  Father, 
Creator,  Governor  and  Preserver  of  all  men.  Now  thus 
he  is  the  God  of  all  men  in  particular ;  and  so  this  argu- 
ment must  show  that  he  would  have  all  men  in  particu- 
lar to  be  saved 3.  He  loill  have  all  men  to  be 

saved,  saith  the  apostle  ;  for  there  is  one  mediator  between 
God  and  Veen,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ran- 
som for  all.  Now  if  the  argument  from  one  God  was, 
as  we  have  proved,  designed  to  show  that  he  is  the  God 
of  all  men  in  particular,  the  argument  from  this  one  me^ 
diator  must  also  prove  Christ  the  mediator  of  all  men  in 
particular.  Hence  he  is  here  emphatically  styled  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  to  intimate  unto  us,  that  having  taken  upon 
him  the  nature  common  to  us  all,  to  fit  him  for  this  of- 
fice, he  must  design  it  for  the  good  of  all  who  were  par- 
takers of  that  nature  ;  for  as  he  was  a  man,  he  surely  was 
endued  with  the  best  of  human  affections,  universal  char- 
ity, which  would  excite  him  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
all.  As  he  was  a  man,  he  was  subject  to  the  common 
law  of  humanity,  which  obliges  us  to  endeavour  the  com- 
mon benefit  of  men."     Annot.  in  loc. 

Such  is  the  annotation  of  Whitby,  on  the  passage  be- 
fore us ;  and  the  argument  is,  to  my  mind,  equivalent  to 
demonstration.  Nevertheless,  the  learned  commentator 
believed  in  and  advocated  the  doctrine  of  endless  pun- 
ishment— with  which,  however,  his  reasoning  is  radically 
irreconcilable.  I  fully  unite  in  his  explication  of  the  will 
of  God;  and  will  now  proceed  to  notice  the  objections 
you  may  perhaps  feel  disposed  to  urge  thereunto. 

And  the  first  I  shall  name  is  the  Arminian  cavil,  that 
the  expression,  God  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  simply 


260  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

denotes  the  desire  of  the  Almighty  that  such  may  be  the 
issue  of  the  Divine  economy.  Although  a  Calvinist,  you 
are  compelled  to  adopt  this  view  of  the  subject — for, 
should  you  admit  that  the  will  mentioned  is  a  determinate 
purpose  of  the  Lord,  you  must  either  concede  the  truth  of 
Universalism,  (which  you  term  a  "  most  ruinous  device 
of  the  devil,")  or  grant  that  the  determinate  purpose  of 
God  will  be  eternally  thwarted  by  the  iniquiiy  of  man. 
The  latter  position  is  as  discordant  with  enlightened  rea- 
son as  it  is  with  the  Bible  doctrine  of  the  Divine  efficiency ; 
and  you  therefore  must  totally  disalloAV  it.  And  as  you 
are  not  yet  prepared  to  concede  the  truth  of  Universalism, 
you  must  adopt  the  Arminian  cavil  before  adverted  to. 
You  have  no  alternative. 

But  you  are  in  no  better  condition,  in  this  state  of  the 
case,  than  you  were  before — for,  since  you  admit  that 
God  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men,  you  must  either  con- 
cede that  all  men  will  be  saved,  or  deny  that  "  the  desire 
of  the  righteous  shall  be  granted,"  Prov.  x.  24.  Now, 
sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  he  who  "  openeth  his  hand  and 
satisfieth  the  desire  of  every  living  thing,"  Psalm  cxlv. 
16,  will  certainly  so  arrange  matters  as  to  satisfy  his  own. 
Besides:  how  does  it  consist  with  true  theology,  to  al- 
lege, that  the  Supreme  God  desires  a  consummation 
which  he  has  not  purposed  to  effect  ?  or  that  he  ivills  a  re- 
sult which  he  does  not  desire? 

Should  you  deny  that  God  desires  the  salvation  of  all 
men,  you  must  admit  one  of  three  positions:  1st.  That 
he  is  wholly  indifferent  to  the  fate  of  the  children  of  hu- 
manity; 2d.  That  he  desires  the  endless  wretchedness 
of  all  our  race ;  or  3d.  That  he  desires  the  salvation  of  a 
part  or  portion  of  the  human  family,  and  the  intermina- 
ble misery  of  the  rest.  The  first  and  second  positions 
are  exploded  by  the  testimony  that  Jesus  "  gave  himself 
a  ransom"-— which  argues  against  indifference,  and  proves 
a  Divine  desire  for  salvation  to  some  extent ;  and  the  con- 
sideration that  he  "  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,"  de- 
mands a  reply  to  the  question,  how  the  one  Mediator  could 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  261 

consistently  give  himself  a  ransom  for  a  greater  number 
than  the  one  God  desired  to  save  ? 

Moreover  :  since  Jesus  "  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
all,"  you  must  either  admit  that  all  will  be  restored,  or 
consent  to  the  appalling  conclusion  that  Christ  died  in 
vam  !  Now,  sir,  the  Bible  instructs  me  to  believe,  that 
our  blessed  Master  "  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul 
and  be  satisfied,"  Isa.  liii.  11 ;  and  that  he  who  "  tasted 
death^,r.p^avrof/or  all,''  Heb.  ii.  9,  shall  finally  "  subdue 
all  things  to  himself,"  and  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the 
Father,  "  that  God  may  be  all  in  all." 

I  have  thus  attempted  to  show,  that  even  should  the 
will  of  God  named  in  the  text  be  considered  expressive  only 
of  desire,  the  argument  is  conclusive  in  proof  of  universal 
salvation  Nevertheless,  I  hold  that  the  declaration, 
(rod  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  expresses  the  determinate 
purpose  oj  the  Almighty.  He  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved.  Were  the  Bible  to  declare  that  he  will  have  all 
men  to  be  interminably  wretched,  I  would  not  presume 
to  advocate  the  salvation  of  any,  on  scriptural  grounds  • 
and  I  see  not  how  you  can  consistently  contend  for  the' 
endless  perdition  of  even  a  single  soul,  so  long  as  you  are 
certified  by  Divine  revelation  that  God  .a.ra,  d.6pu>.ovs  OeXec 
cuOrjvai,  Will  havc  all  men  to  be  saved."  When  Jesus 
said  to  the  leper,  e^Xc,  I  will,  be  thou  clean,"  Matt.  viii. 
6,  his  will  was  a  determinate  purpose;  and  the  same  re- 
mark is  applicable  to  the  testimony  of  Paul  in  Ephes.  i. 
9—11  :  "  Having  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of 
his  WILL,  according  to  his  good  pleasdre,  which  he  hath 
PURPOSED  in  himself,  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness 
ot  times  he  might  gather  together  in  oi,e  all  thmffs  in 
l^hrist,  both  which  are  in  heaven  and  which  are  on  earth 
even  in  him  :  in  whom  also  we  have  obtained  an  inherit- 
ance, being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of 
him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own 

"Will." 

In  this  passage  you  perceive,  1st.  That  the  will,  good 
PLEASURE,   and  purpose  of  God  are  associated— which 


262  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

fact  destroys  the  supposition  that  his  will,  in  reference  to 
the  final  destiny  of  man,  is  only  a  matter  of  desire  ;  2d. 
That  the  will,  good  pleasure  and  purpose  of  God  embrace 
the  final  gathering  of  all  things  into  Christ ;  3d.  That 
God  purposed  this,  not  in  man,  (for  if  dependent  on  the 
creature  it  might  fail,)  but  in  himself,  in  the  immutability 
of  his  own  nature  ;  and  4lh.  That  he  who  revealed  this 
glorious  and  ineffably  sublime  mystery,  ''vjorketh  all 
things  (not  according  to  the  imaginings,  faith  or  works  of 
men,  but)  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  icill."  The  infer- 
ence is  that  he  has  a  will — yea,  that  his  ivill  is  primary 
and  independent.  This  accords  with  the  testimony  in  Isa. 
xiv.  27 :  "  The  Lord  of  hosts  hath  purposed,  and  who  shall 
disannul  it  ?  and  his  hand  is  stretched  out,  and  who  shall 
turn  it  back?"  Also  it  harmonizes  Avith  the  fervent 
prayer  of  the  Christian's  heart,  "  Thy  will,  0  God,  be 
done." 

Collateral  evidence  of  the  final  universal  in-gathering 
pointed  out  in  the  preceding  testimony,  is  furnished  in 
abundance  by  the  voice  of  inspiration.  Jesus  said,  "For 
I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but 
the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,"  John  vi.  38 ;  and  we  have 
seen  that  he  who  sent  the  Messias,  "  will  have  all  men 
to  be  saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth."  In  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  his  mission,  our 
Saviour  said,  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  unto  me,"  John  xii.  32.  The  fulfil- 
ment of  this  glorious  purpose,  is  guarantied  by  the  pro- 
mise, and  the  oath,  and  the  power  of  God.  Confirmatory 
of  this  conclusion,  I  cite  the  following:  "  The  Father  lov- 
eth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  irdvTa  all  things  into  his 
hands,"  John  iii.  35.  "All  that  the  Father  giveth  me 
shall  come  to  me  ;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in 
no  wise  cast  out,"  John  vi.  37.  The  reason  assigned  of 
the  latter  declaration,  is  stated  in  the  passage  first  cited 
in  this  paragraph.  How  beautifully  this  testimony  har- 
monizes with  the  promise  in  Psalm  xxii.  27,28:  'AH 
the  ends  of  the  world  shall  remember  and  turn  unto  the 
Lord ;  and  all  the  kindreds  of  the  nations  shall  worship 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 


before  thee.  For  the  kingdom  is  the  Lord's ;  and  he  is  the 
governor  among  the  nations." 

As  I  consider  you  virtually  an  Arminian,  thougli  nom- 
mally  a  Cah  mist,  I  feel  at  liberty  to  notice  an  objection 
to  the  foregoing doctrme  of  Divine  revelation. 

We  are  frequently  told  that  God  will  not  do  au^rht  in 
violation  of  human  agency-and  that,  as  all  men  do  not 
wiU  to  he  saved,  universal  salvation  cannot  consistently  be 
^^^_,^!^^— ^^^smuch  as  such  result  would  imply  the  afore- 
said miringement. 

In  reply,  I  remark,  that,  in  the  judgment  of  Univer- 
salists,  man  is  a  moral  agent ;  that  all  the  agency  he  pos- 
sesses IS  the  gift  of  God  ;  and  that  to  said  agency  no  vio- 
lence  wiH  ever  be  offered  by  the  Giver.  Nevertheless, 
we  hold  that  he  who  is  the  Author  of,  has  the  power  to 
give  to,  the  agency  of  man  such  impulse,  and  to  his  will 
such  a  direction,  as  infinite  benevolence  may  prompt- 
and  to  do  this  m  such  a  way  as  not  to  contravene  the  lib- 
erty ol  the  human  mind.  No  violence  Avas  offered  to  the 
agency  or  will  of  Saul  of  Tarsus-yet  that  prominent 
persecutor  of  the  saints,  became  an  eminent  apostle  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  not  primarily  by,  but  in  conformity 
with  his  own  will.  And  we  heartily'believe,  and  rejoice 
m  believing,  that  the  Divine  efficiency  which  accomplished 
this  work  in  the  chief  of  sinners,  will  never  lose  its  power- 
and  that  n  will  go  on  conquering  and  to  conquer,  until 
the  will  of  every  son  and  daughter  of  our  race  shall  bow 
m  meek  submission  to  its  life-giving  energy,  and  partake 
ot  the  celestial  joys  which  nought  but  the  grace  of  the 
Lord  can  bestow. 

Yours  respectfully, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

r,       c<'      r.       .    r.  Philadelphia,  July  7,  1835. 

JJear  bir— Certain  Samaritans  believed  in  the  Saviour 


264  THEOLOGICAL   DISCHSSION. 

on  the  testimony  of  a  woman  with  whom  he  had  some 
interesting  conversation  near  Jacob's  well  :  others  were 
indisposed  to  believe  until  they  had  heard  him  them- 
selves. They  heard,  and  conviction  was  sealed  to  their 
understandings — for  they  said  to  the  woman,  '"  Now  we 
believe,  not  because  of  thy  saying  ;  for  we  have  heaiJ 
him  ourselves,  and  know  that  this  is  the  Christy  the  Sa 
viour  of  THE  WORLD,"  John  iv.  42.  I  consider  this  evi- 
dence valuable,  chiefiv  because  it  corroborates  the  tes- 
timony of  the  inspired  apostle  who  recorded  it:  "We 
have  seen  and  do  testify  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to 
be  the  Saviour  of  the  world,"  1  John  iv.  14. 

In  order  to  nullify  the  force  of  this  sacred  Scripture  in 
proof  of  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  mankind, 
you  will  be  disposed  to  deny  either  that  the  world  em- 
braces the  whole  of  our  race,  or  that  the  object  of  the 
Father  in  sending  the  Son  will  be  accomplished.  To 
these  alternatives  our  attention  will  therefore  be  directed. 

In  the  first  place,  I  suppose  you  to  deny  that  the  world 
comprises  the  whole  of  our  race.  A  clause  in  your  letter 
of  April  3,  1834,  furnishes  information  touching  the  gen- 
eral grounds  of  said  denial.  You  say,  '•  The  world  and 
the  whole  world  frequently  mean  any  complete  system 
of  things  ;  and  hence  we  read  of  a  world  of  iniquity  in 
the  tongue ;  of  a  world  lying  in  sin  from  which  the 
apostles  and  saints  were  excepted ;  and  of  the  world 
gone  after  Christ,  while  multitudes  never  went  after  him. 
There  is  a  world  of  believers,  and  a  world  of  unbeliev- 
ers." 

Before  proceeding  to  review  these  statements,  I  desire 
to  notice  a  conclusion  to  which  your  reasoning  unques- 
tionably leads.  In  denying  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son 
to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  entire  world  of  mankind,  you 
virtually  affirm,  either  that  some  may  he  saved  without  a 
Saviour,  or  that  salvation  for  all  men  is  impossible.  And 
it  matters  little  whether  that  impossibility  be  consequent 
of  a  fixed  decree  of  absolute  reprobation,  or  of  the  fact 
that  provision  has  been  made  for  the  salvation  of  only  a 
limited  number.     The   moment  you  concede  that  all 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  265 

men  may  be  saved,  you  admit  that  provision  has  been 
made  for  the  salvation  of  all;  and  this  admission  is  aa 
acknowledgment,  in  effect,  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son 
to  be  the  Saviour  of  all. 

Allow  me  to  enlarge  on  this  subject.  Do  you  admit, 
without  mental  reservation,  that  it  is  possible  for  all  our 
race  to  be  saved  ?  I  say,  without  mental  reservation — 
for  I  am  suspicious  that  some  of  your  Calvinislic  breth- 
ren, while  they  proclaim  the  doctrine  that  all  may  be 
saved  loho  will,  keep  back  that  very  abhorrent  feature  of 
their  creed,  to  wit,  that  none  but  the  elect  can  will  to  be 
saved.  This,  sir,  is  so  obviously  a  bitter  mockery  of  the 
sinner's  wo,  and  so  palpably  a  violation  of  gospel  princi- 
ples, that  I  cannot,  and  do  not,  lay  trie  sin  to  your  per- 
sonal charge.  I  assume  that  you  either  admit,  or  deny, 
unequivocally,  that  all  men  may  be  saved.  If  you  admit 
the  bare  possibility  in  question,  you  must  concede  that 
the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  whole 
human  family  ;  and  if  you  deny  the  possibility  of  salva- 
tion for  all,  you  must  grant  that  said  impossibility  is  fixed 
by  a  decree  of  reprobation, — or,  what  is  equivalent  thereto, 
that  for  the  salvation  of  a  part  or  portion  of  our  race,  not 
the  least  provision  has  been  made  !  This,  I  am  satisfied, 
is  substantially  the  doctrine  of  your  Confession  of  Faith. 
"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting 
life,  and  others  predestinated  unto  everlasting  death. 
These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  foreor- 
dained, are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed  ;  and 
their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot 
be  either  increased  or  diminished."  But  you  teach  that 
all  men  may  be  saved  ;  and  whether  you  can  or  cannot 
reconcile  this  idea  with  the  explicit  doctrine  of  your 
creed,  I  see  not  how  you  can  consistently  or  conscien- 
tiously deny  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  whole  world. 

You  say,  however,  "  there  is  a  world  of  believers,  and 
a  world  of  unbelievers."  But  did  the  Father  send  the 
Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  a  world  of  believers  ?  No, 
23 


366  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

sir,  "  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  accepta-' 
tion,  that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
ners," 1  Tim.  i.  15.     "  They  that  be  whole,  need  not  a 

physician,  but  they  that  are  sick I  am  not  come  to 

call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance,"  Matt.  ix. 
12,  13.  "  The  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  that  which  is 
LOST,"  Matt,  xviii.  11.  "  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly" — for 
SINNERS— for  his  ENEMIES,  Rom.  V.  6,  8,  10.  Who  were 
believers,  who  weie  righteous,  when  Jesus  came  into  the 
world  ?  Sir,  it  is  manifest  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son 
to  be  the  Saviour  of  a  world  of  unbelievers  and  sinners. 
Thus  John  saw — thus  John  testified — and  this  is  the  tes- 
timony of  your  correspondent,  and  of  all  his  kindred  in- 
the  faith.  When  the  beloved  disciple  says,  *''  If  any  man 
sin  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ 
the  righteous  ;  and  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
WORLD,"  1  John  ii.  1,  2,  do  you  understand  him  to  mean 
that  Jesus  is  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  believers 
only  ?  How  many  believers  were  there  in  the  world 
when  Messias  '*  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all  ?"  how 
many  saints  when  he  tasted  death  for  every  man  ?  Your 
doctrine  of  limitation  cannot  stand.  It  is  contradictory 
of  the  plainest  passages  of  the  Bible. 

I  freely  grant  that  the  world  sometimes  signifies  a  limit- 
ed number — as  in  John  xii.  19  :  "  The  world  is  gone 
after  him."  In  other  places  it  may  mean  a  complete 
system  of  things,  as  you  state.  The  scope  of  the  con- 
text, and  reason,  must  determine  the  signification.  I 
have  already  attempted  to  show  that  reason  affixes  the 
idea  of  universality  to  the  term  in  1  John  iv.  A — inas- 
much as  limitation  thereof  would  involve  the  most  re- 
volting conclusions.  In  1  John  v.  19,  to  which  you  refer, 
it  is  written — '"And  we  know  that  we  are  of  God,  ana 
the  whole  world  lieth  m  wickedness."  Here  the  disciples 
are  plainly  excepted — but  you  will  not  contend  for  any 
other  exception.  And  I  desire  you  to  remember,  that 
Jesus  Christ  the  righteous  is  declared  to  be  the  propitia^ 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  267 

tion  for  the  sins  of  the  persons  excepted,  and  not  for 
theirs  cnly,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  ivorld. 

In  this  state  of  the  argument,  you  may  be  disposed  to 
introduce  some  expressions  in  the  memorable  prayer  of 
our  Lord,  recorded  in  John  xvii.  You  will  contend  that 
the  salvation  of  the  whole  world  of  mankind  was  not 
contemplated  in  the  mission  of  Christ,  inasmuch  as  he 
said,  •'  I  pray  for  them,  [the  disciples  ;]  1  pray  not  for  the 
world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me  ;  lor  they 
are  thine>"  But  the  intercession  stops  not  here.  If  it 
did,  no  consistent  exposition  could  be  given  of  the  prayer 
offered  by  our  Lord  in  the  last  hour  of  his  earthly  career 
— '•  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do,"  Luke  xxiii.  34.  The  intercession  is  thus  continued  : 
Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which 
shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word  ;  that  they  all 
may  be  one  ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee, 
that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us  ;  that  the  world  may  be- 
lieve that  thou  hr.st  sent  me."  All  I  now  contend  for, 
is,  that  the  salvation  of  all  mankind  was  contemplated 
in  the  mission  of  Christ  ;  and  this  position  has,  in  my 
judgment,  been  established  beyond  the  possibility  of  rea- 
sonable dispute.  But  to  '•  make  assurance  doubly  sure," 
I  repeat,  that  should  you  persist  in  denying  what  appears 
to  me  so  perfectly  obvious,  you  must  cling  to  the  distinc- 
tive doctrine  of  ancient  Calvinism,  namely,  that  there  is 
no  possibility  for  the  salvation  of  any  of  our  race,  except- 
ing a  number  of  men  and  angels  which  is  so  certain  and 
definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished. 
And  the  abhorrent  corollary  unavoidably  follows,  that  an 
equally  certain  and  definite  number  of  men  and  angels 
were  created  to  be  fuel  for  hell-fire  for  ever  ! 

My  knowledge  of  the  Christian  benevolence  of  your 
heart,  and  of  the  general  character  of  your  public  min- 
istrations and  editorial  labours,  justifies  me  in  assuming 
that  you  will  prefer  the  previous  alternative,  namely,  that 
the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  all  mankind. 
In  this  case  you  must  either  admit  the  truth  of  Univer- 
s^lism,  or  deny  that  the  purpose  of  the  Father  of  Mercies 


268  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

will  be  accomplished.  Supposing  you  still  inclined 
"earnestly  to  contend  "  against ^Yhat I  believe  to  oe  ''  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  I  shall  proceed  to 
show  ihat  the  preferred  alternative  is  unworthy  your 
support.  This  work  was  attended  to,  in  part,  in  a  pre- 
vious letter — but  the  Arminian  denial  of  the  Divine  effi- 
ciency is  so  completely  inwoven  with  popular  theology, 
as  to  justify  a  farther  exposure  of  its  fallacy  and  infidelity. 

To  allege  that  God  has  commenced  an  enterprise 
which  he  uiJl  not  effect,  is  an  impeachment  of  his  wis- 
dom and  immutability — for  it  implies  that  circumstances 
will  arise  which  will  induce  him  wholly  to  relinquish 
his  purpose,  or  essentially  to  modify  his  plans  j  and  the 
assertion  that  he  has  purposed  what  he  cannot  effect,  (no 
matter  what  the  obstacles  may  be,)  is  so  palpable  a  de- 
nial of  his  infinite  power,  that  I  marvel  exceedingly 
when  any  one  advances  the  infidel  hypothesis.  It  places 
the  Supreme  God  in  the  pitiable  condition  of  a  man  who 
begins  to  build,  and  is  not  able  to  finish.  "Which  of 
you,  intending  to  build  a  tower,  sitteth  not  down  first, 
and  counteth  the  cost,  whether  he  have  sufficient  to  finish 
it?  Lest  haply,  after  he  hath  laid  the  foiinddtion,  and 
is  not  able  to  finish  it,  all  that  behold  it  begin  to  mock 
him,  sayincr,  This  man  began  to  build,  and  was  not  able 
to  finish,"'  Luke  xiv.  28—30.  According  to  the  showing 
of  Arminians.  God  laid  the  foundation  of  universal  sal- 
vation, in  sending  his  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  ;  and  subsequently  discovered  that  he  had  not  suf- 
ficient means  to  complete  the  work  !  I  shudder,  sir,  to 
think  of  this  profanation  of  the  holy  attributes  of  the 
Most  High  God.  In  my  judgment,  it  is  tantamount  to 
treading  Immanuel  under  foot,  counting  the  blood  of  the 
covenant  an  unholy  thing,  and  doing  despite  to  the  Spirit 
of  redeeming  grace  ! 

To  deny  that  God  has  made  sufficient  provision  for 
the  salvation  of  all  our  race,  is  to  admit  the  monstrous 
conclusion  before  dilated  upon — namely,  that  either  by 
the  decree  or  (with  reverence  be  it  said)  the  neglect  oi 
the  Almighty,  some  men  and  angels  will  certainly  be 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  269 

doomed  to  endless  wo  ;  and  to  grant  that  sufficient  pro- 
vision has  been  made  for  the  salvation  of  all,  is  equiva- 
lent to  an  admission  that  all  men  will  be  saved — for  the 
sufficiency  of  the  means  employed,  can  only  be  determined 
by  the  accomplishment  of  the  end  designed.  The  gospel, 
the  Divine  plan  of  salvation,  views  man  as  he  is,  a  sinner 
— and  the  removal  of  whatever  perversity  there  be  in  the 
huraari  will,  and  of  all  difficulties  which  exist,  of  what- 
ever kind,  is  provided  for  in  the  economy  of  heaven.  Infi- 
nite wisdom  devised  the  plan  in  conformity  with  the  dic- 
tates of  infinite  love,  and  infinite  power  will  effect  the 
purpose  of  unbounded  grace. 

Yours  respectfully, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  July  9,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — Your  inattention  to  my  arguments  on  sev- 
eral passages  of  sacred  Scripture,  introduced  in  the  early 
part  of  our  amicable  discussion,  Avill  exonerate  me  from 
the  charge  of  impropriety  in  presenting  them  again.  You 
indeed  attempted  to  invalidate  your  correspondent's  expo- 
sition of  some  of  those  passages — but  wher  he  rejoined 
and  (as  he  then  thought  and  still  thinks)  refuted  your  ob- 
jections, unwarrantable  silence  was  all  the  answer  he  re- 
ceived. I  cannot  countenance  any  such  disregard  of  the 
proofs  of  the  doctrine  in  which  the  Universalist  rejoices 
with  unutterable  joy. 

Colossians  i.  19,  20 :  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that 
in  him  [Christ]  should  all  fulness  dwell;  and,  having 
made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to  re- 
concile ALL  THINGS  to  kimself,  by  him,  I  say,  whether  they 
be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven." 

In  your  attempt  to  set  this  testimony  aside,  as  a  proof 
of  Universalism,  you  first  admitted  that  "he  must  be 
kappy  who  becomes  reconciled  to  God,  by  a  change  in  his 
23* 


270  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

State  and  mental  operations,  so  that  he  is  a  pardoned  sin- 
ner  and  loves  God,"  and  then  laboured  to  show  that  the 
reconciliation  mentioned  in  the  text  is  not  ot  this  descrip- 
tion.    You  sav  that  •'  the  word  reconale  primarily  signi- 
fies to  change 'any  thing  from  one  state  to  another;  and 
hence,  secondarily,  when  a  man's  mmd  is  changed  from 
enmity  to  love,  in  relation  to  any  one,  he  is  said  to  be  re- 
conciled to  that  individual."     You  contend  that  the  word 
is  used  in  its  primary  sense  in  the  passage  before  us.     io 
thi^  I  reply,  1st.  That  the  reconciliation  referred  to  is  a 
chancre  from  enmity  to  love-for  in  the  verse  following, 
the  disciples  are  thus  addressed:  "And  yo?^  that  were 
somelivne  alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mmd  by  v:ickea 
works,  yet  noiv  hath  he  reconciled."  The  reconciliation 
T)reviously  spoken  of  must  be   of  the  same  general  char- 
acter—inasmuch  as  the  verb  is  the  same  in  the  original 
Greek.     2d.  Dr.  George  Campbell,  in  a  note  on  Matt. 
Y    9    writes  as  follows :  "  This  word  [apvvojroioi)  is  not 
found  in  any  other  part  of  Scripture,  but  (which  is  nearly 
•the  same,)  the  verb  ap,vo.o,.a.,  of  the  same  origin,  occurs 
Col  i.  20  where  the  connexion  shows  that  it  cannot  signity 
to  be  c^entle,  to  be  peaceable,  but  actively  to  reconcile,  to 
vnakeveace.     Etymology  and  classical  use  also  concur  m 
ailixin^  the  sense  of  reconciler,  peacemaker,  to  cp^voTrotoj. 
You  undoubtedly  unite  in  this  view  of  the  word  trans- 
lated  having  made  peace,  in  verse  20 ;  and  as  the  connexion 
of  every  passage  must  be  consulted  and  the  general  scope 
of  the  place  regarded,  it  is  manifest   that  your  argument 
on  the  word  reconcile  is  wholly  fallacious.  And  I  consider 
it  established  beyond  plausible  denial,  that  the  reconcilia- 
tion  in  question  is  of  the  description  which,  you  acknow- 
ledge, must  secure  the  happiness  of  all  persons  who  par- 
ticipate therein.  .  . 

The  import  of  the  phrase  all  things  is  the  only  point 
that  remains  to  be  considered.  Were  we  discoursing  of 
a  less  momentous  subject,  I  should  be  disposed  to  query 
whether  you  seriously  allecje,  as  an  objection  to  the  wm- 
versalify  of  the  phrase,  that  "  the  stones  of  the  streets 
the  birds  of  the  air,  the  cattle  of  the  hills,  the  air  we 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  271 

breathe,  and  the  winds  and  waves,"  are  things.  And  it 
might  also  be  questionable  whether  you  were  serious  in 
saying,  "If  there  is  a  single  thing,  a  man,  an  apple,  a 
pebble,  to  be  excluded  from  the  class  of  all  things  to  be 
reconciled,  so  as  to  be  happy,  your  argument  from  abso- 
lute wdversality  in  this  passage  is  lost."  You  do  not  sup- 
pose that  the  apostles  were  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
birds  of  the  air  or  the  cattle  of  the  hills — yet  pleach  the 
o-ospel  to  EVERY  CREATURE,  was  the  Divine  command. 
That  rational  creatures  only  are  referred  to,  is  implied. 
And  as  rational  things  only  can  ever  be  in  a  state  of  en- 
mity to  (rod,  such  beings  only  are  included  in  the  class 
of  all  things  to  be  reconciled. 

In  the  preceding  context,  the  phrase  in  question  occurs 

five  times  ;  "  for  by  him  were  all  things  created 

all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him ;  and  he  is 
before  all  things ;  and  by  him  all  things  consist ;  and  he 

is  the  head  of  the  body that  in  all  things  he 

might  have  the  pre-eminence."  I  consider  it  but  a  quib- 
ble, when  you  say,  that  "  there  are  some  things  in  exis- 
tence which  were  not  made  by  him ;  such  as  the  essence 
of  the  Deity,  infinite  space,  and  the  actions  of  free  agents." 
There  is  good  sense,  however,  in  your  remark,  that  "  the 
■all  things  created  are  limited  to  all  creatures.''  To  Avhich 
I  add,  that  as  to  reconcile  all  things  signifies  but  the  recon- 
ciliation of  such  things  as  were,  are,  or  maybe  "  alienated 
from  the  life  of  God  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in 
them,"  Eph.  iv.  18,  so  you  and  I  have  come  to  this  con- 
clusion :  "It  pleased  the  Father  that  in  Christ  should  all 
fulness  dwell,  and  by  him  to  reconcile  to  himself  all  ali- 
enated rational  beings." 

The  expression  "  things  in  earth,  and  things  in  heaven," 
is  simply  a  periphrasis  of  vavTa,  all  things.  It  is  used  .by 
way  of  emphasis,  or  of  intensity,  as  Professor  Stuart 
would  say.  As  I  cannot  conceive  of  alienation  from  God 
in  any  of  the  celestial  inhabitants,  so  I  judge  that  the 
expression  is  merely  a  figurative  superaddition.  designed 
to  show  that  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  embraces  the  recon- 
ciliation of  all  alienated  beings,  wherever  they  may  exist. 


272  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

When  we  read  that  "  the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and 
hath  given  ttSlvto,  all  things  into  his  hands,"  John  iii.  35; 
that  Jesus  "  gave  himself  a  ransom  Inep  nai'Ttov  for  all,^^  1 
Tim.  ii.  6  ;  that  he  hath  been  "  appointed  heir  of  Travrwv 
allthings,^^  Heb.  i.  2;  that  "  he  is  Lord  (or  owner)  Travrwv 
of  all,''  Acts  X.  36  ;  that  "  it  pleased  the  Father  by  him  to 
reconcile  Ta  TTdtra  «//  things  to  himself,"  Col.  i.  20;  and 
that  "  TO  ndvra  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,"  1  Cor 
XV.  28, — we  naturally  give  to  the  word  or  phrase  in  ques- 
tion the  unrestricted  sense  it  bears  in  the  declaration,  God 
"  will  have  vavras  avdpujirovs,  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to 
Gome  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,"  1  Tim.  ii.  4. 

Philippians  ii.  9,  11  :  "  Wherefore  God  also  hath  high- 
ly exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name  ;  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth ;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. 

Professor  Stuart  says,  that  "  things  in  heaven,  earth, 
and  under  the  earth,  is  a  common  periphrasis  of  the  He- 
brew and  New  Testament  writers  for  the  universe." 
Letters  to  Channing,  p.  100.  He  refers  to  the  text  before 
us,  and  also  to  Rev.  v.  13.  Dr.  George  Campbell,  in 
reference  to  the  same  passages,  says,  that  Karaxdovioi  is  "  a 
word  of  the  same  import  with  the  phrase  vrroKaTOi  ttjs  yi??, 
under  the  earth,  in  the  Apocalypse;  and  with  the  trovpavioi 
and  eriyeioi,  Celestial  beings  and  terrestrial,  include  the 
WHOLE  RATIONAL  CREATION.  That  they  are  expressly  enu- 
merated as  including  the  whole,  Avill  be  manifest  to  every 
one  who  attentively  peruses  the  two  passages  referred  to." 
Diss.  YI.  p.  ii.  Sec.  6.  To  which  I  subjoin,  that  this 
conclusion  will  be  equally  manifest  to  any  one  who  will 
give  to  the  expressions,  every  knee  and  every  tongue,  their 
obvious  signification. 

From  the  fact  thus  established,  in  conjunction  with  the 
declaration,  "  No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord 
but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  I  infer  the  final  ho- 
liness and  happiness  of  all  mankind.  You  object  to  this 
conclusion,  1st.  Because  "  a  parrot  might  say,  '  Jesus  is 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  273 

the  Lord,'  without  the  least  intelligence" — but  as  that 
confession  only  can  be  to  tlie  glory  of  God  the  Father  which 
is  made  in  conviction  of  the  judgment  and  sincerity  of 
heart,  the  objection  is  fallacious,  and  may  therefore  be 
dismissed.  2d.  You  assert  that  some  of  our  race  "  will 
confess  Christ  ii  such  a  way  that  God  the  Father  will 
be  glorified  in  their  danination."  This  is  merely  an  as- 
sertion, and  as  such  does  not  justly  deserve  consideration 
— nevertheless  let  us  look  at  it  in  the  light  of  the  text. 
(L)  Paul  furnishes  no  intimation  that  some  shall  bow 
and  confess  in  one  way  and  the  rest  in  another.  He 
makes  no  distinction  as  to  manner  or  result ;  and  there- 
fore you  might  as  properly  assert,  that  the  Father  will 
be  glorified  in  the  damnation  of  a/Z,  as  that  some  will  con- 
fess Christ  in  such  a  way.as  to  glorify  God  in  their  doom 
of  despair.  (2.)  In  order  that  the  confession,  Jesus  Christ 
IS  Lord,  may  be  to  the  glory  of  the  Father,  it  must  be 
made  i/i/^/i/A— inasmuch  as  the  God  of  truth  cannot  be 
glorified  in  the  confession  of  that  which  is  not  believed. 
It  is  written,  "  Whosoever  heliereih  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ 
is  horn  of  God,"  1  John  v.  i.  (3.)  Professor  StuAxRt,  on 
the  text  before  us,  says—"  What  can  be  meant  by  things 
in  heaven,  that  is,  beings  in  heaven,  bowing  the  knee 
to  Jesus,  if  spiritual  ivorship  be  not  meant?"  Refer- 
ring lO  Pvev.  V.  13,  he  writes  as  folloAvs:  "If  this  be 
not  spiritual  worship,  and  if  Christ  be  not  the  object  of 
it  here,  I  am  unable  to  produce  a  case  where  worship 
can  be  called  spiritual  and  divine."  Perm.it  me  to  add, 
that  this  universal  bowing  down,  and  universal  confes- 
sion, indicate  the  consummation  of  the  Divine  purpose, 
that  Christ  shall  subdue  all  things  to  himself,  reconcile 
them  to  the  Father,  and  subsequently  be  himself  sub- 
ject, that  God  may  be  all  in  all. 

I  will  conclude  this  epistle  with  a  few  examples  in  il- 
lustration of  the  statement,  that  in  connexion  with  many 
of  the  testimonies  pertaining  to  the  final  holiness  and 
happiness  of  all  mankind,  there  is  either  a  direct  mention 
or  obvious  implication  of  the  special,  present,  blessedness 
of  believers. 


274  THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION. 

In  Colossians  i.  21,  (the  context  of  which  proves  the 
doctrine  of  universal  reconciliation  to  God,  as  I  have  at- 
'tempted  to  show,)  it  is  thus  written  :  "  And  you  [the  saints 
and  faithful  brethren  at  Colosse]  that  were  sometime 
alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked  works, 
yet  now  hath  he  reconciled" — that  is,  those  disciples 
liad  already  experienced  such  a  change  in  their  state  and 
mental  operations  as  brought  them  into  the  enjoyment  of 
celestial  peace.  In  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  the  fact  that  "  God 
was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  nnto  himself,"  is  thus 
introduced  :  "  And  all  things  are  of  God,  who  hath  re- 
conxiled  us  [the  disciples]  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ." 
The  same  general  truth  is  taught  in  James  i.  18  :  "  Of 
his  own  will  begat  he  vs  [the  primitive  disciples]  by  the 
word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  first  fruits 
of  his  [rational]  creatures."  I  say  rational,  because  the 
character  of  the  harvest,  the  lump,  is  indicated  by  the 
first  fruits.  Romans  xi.  16.  In  Rom.  viii.  18— -23,  (to 
my  remarks  on  which  you  have  not  yielded  the  slightest 
attention,)  this  subject  is  also  illustrated  :  "  For  I  reckon 
that  the  sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to 
be  compared  with  the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed  in 
t(s,  [the  believ^ers.]  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the 
creature  [the  creation]  waiteth  for  the  manifestation  of 
the  sons  of  God.  For  the  creature  [the  creation]  was 
made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by  reason  of 
him  who  hath  subjected  the  same  in  hope.  Because  the 
creature  [the  creation]  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God.  For  we  know  that  the  ivhole  [rational] 
creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until 
now.  And  not  only  they,  but  ourselves  also,  which  have 
the  FIRST  FRUITS  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan 
within  ourselves,  waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  re- 
demption of  our  body." 

In  this  remarkable  passage  of  Holy  Writ,  the  disciples, 
the  believers,  are  set  forth,  on  the  one  hand,  as  having  the 
fi'-st  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  as  being  in  the  present  en* 
joyment  of  the  blessing  which  must  ever  be  consequen 


'THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  275 

■of  believing  and  obeying  the  truth.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  promise  is  communicated,  that  the  whole  rational 
creation,  which  is  in  the  bondage  of  corruption,  shall  b3 
delivered  therefrom,  and  introduced  into  the  glorious  lib- 
erty of  the  children  of  God. 

It  is  my  fervent  desire,  that  yow,  sir,  together  with  all 
who  unite  with  you  in  opinion  as  to  the  final  destiny  of 
man,  may  be  so  turned  from  the  power  of  darkness  unto 
light,  as  by  faith  to  enter  into  the  immediate  enjoyment 
cf  the  blessedness  which  is  reserved  in  heaven  for  the 
ransomed  of  the  Lord; 

Yours  respectfully, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  July  13,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — ^In  this  letter  I  propose  considering  the  doc^ 
trine  of  the  resurrection  of  mankind  into  an  immortal  ex- 
istence, as  taught  in  the  Bible.  Perhaps  I  should  rather 
say,  I  propose  a  re-consideration  of  that  subject — inas- 
much as  it  was  discoursed  of,  at  some  length,  in  the  pro- 
gress of  our  controversy.  It  is  desirable,  however,  that 
the  substance  of  what  has  been  said  on  that  especially 
important  branch  of  the  discussion,  should  again  be 
brought  into  view. 

In  1  Cor.  XV.  22,  it  is  thus  written  :  "  For  as  in  Adam 
ALL  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." 
You  admit  that  the  word  all,  in  each  member  of  thi& 
sentence,  is  expressive  oi  universality — for  though  Enoch 
and  Elijah  were  translated,  they  must  have  underwent  a 
change  which  was  equivalent  to  death. 

By  Adam^  in  the  passage  before  us,  I  understand  the 
mortal  constitution  of  the  first  man,  who  was  of  the 
earth,  earthy.  All  the  children  of  humanity  bear  his 
image,  as  a  mortal  being;  and  in  that  image  they  must 
return  to  the  dust  whence  they  were  taken.     By  Christ 


276  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

I  understand  the  quickening  spirit,  the  Lord  from  heaven, 
the  heaveuly.  By  being  made  alive  in  Christ  is  signi- 
fied the  resurrection  into  a  state  of  incorruption,  power, 
glory  ;  in  a  spiritual  body  ;  in  the  image  of  the  heavenly, 
who  is  declared  to  have  been  "  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God." 

As  it  is  not  optional  with  man  whether  he  will  or  will 
not  die  in  Adam,  so  I  judge  it  to  be  not  a  matter  of  choice 
with  him.  whether  he  will  or  will  not  be  made  alive  in 
Christ.  The  promise  is  absolute,  and  in  the  fulfilment 
thereof,  man  is  necessarily  passive.  "  For  as  in  Adam 
all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  he  made  alive." 

Thus  far  there  is  perfect  unity  in  our  views  of  the  res- 
urrection— but  you  assert  that  some  will  be  made  alive 
in  Christ  to  an  eternity  of  misery — while  inspiration 
avers,  that  "if  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  crea- 
ture," 2  Cor.  V,  17.  From  this  testimony,  in  connexion 
with  the  text,  I  deduce  the  doctrine  of  ultimate  universal 
blessedness  in  Christ.  To  this  conclusion  you  object, 
because  Jesus  said,  "  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth 
not  fruit  he  taketh  away.  If  any  man  abide  not  in  me, 
he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered  ;  and  men 
gather  them  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are 
burned,"  John  xv.  2 — 6  ;  and  thence  you  infer  that  many 
of  those  who  shall  be  made  alive  in  Christ  will  subse- 
quently be  cast  off,  having  ever  been  unfruitful  in  good 
works.  I  rejoin,  that  I  will  admit  your  conclusion  if  you 
will  prove  the  all  important  postulate,  that  some  will  not 
abide  in  Christ  in  the  resurrection  state.  The  fact  that 
some  men  are  not  in  Christ  in  the  present  life,  is  not  to 
the  purpose — for,  however,  they  may  live  or  die,  they 
will  all  be  made  alive  in  Christ,  in  incorruption,  power, 
glory  ;  in  a  spiritual  body  ;  in  the  image  of  the  heavenly. 
As  I  said  in  my  letter  of  August  27,  1834,  so  I  say  now, 
that  "  to  be  in  Christ  in  this  mutable  state,  surrounded  by 
temptation,  exposed  to  the  power  of  deceptive  influences, 
and  liable  each  moment  to  be  led  into  sin,  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent matter  from  being  in  Christ  in  an  unchanging 
state,  removed  from  the  influence  of  tempting  and  cor 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  277 

rupting  circumstances.  He  who  is  in  Christ,  even  in  this 
life,  is  a  new  creature — for  he  "  has  put  off  the  old  man^ 
which  is  corrupt,  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts,"  and 
has  "put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness" — but  he  rnay  revert  to  his 
former  estate,  and  be  cast  off  as  an  unfruitful  branch. 
Now,  if  you  can  prove  that  any  one  who  will  be  made 
alive  in  Christ,  in  incorruption,  and  in  a  spiritual  body, 
and  who  is  therefore  a  new  creature,  will  not  abide  in 
Christ,  or  will  ever  again  put  on  the  old  man  which  is 
corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts,  then  you  will 
have  proved  that  such  an  one  will  be  cast  off— but  not 
otherwise. 

1  Corinthians  xv.  28  :  "  And  when  ra  irdvra,  all  things, 
i-oTayv,  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also 
himself  hiroTaymtTai  be  subject  [or  subdued]  unto  him  that 
put  all  things  under  him,  [or  rather,  that  subdued  all 
things  unto  him]  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  You 
will  perceive  that  the  word  also  debars  the  popular  ca- 
vil that  some  will  be  subdued  in  one  way,  and  the  rest 
in  another  ;  and  I  know  of  no  rational  exposition  of  the 
language,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all,  if  a  part  of  our  race 
are  to  be  eternally  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  his 
love. 

Jesus  said  to  the  Sadducees,  as  recorded  in  Matthew 
xxii.  29,  30  :  "  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures, 
nor  the  power  of  God:  for  in  the  resurrection  they  nei- 
ther marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  the  an- 
gels of  God  in  heaven."  In  the  parallel  place  in  Luke  xx. 
34—36,  it  is  thus  written  :  "  The  children  of  this  world 
marry,  and  are  given  in  marriage  ;  but  they  which  shall 
be  accounted  worthy  to  obtain  that  world,  and  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead,  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in 
marriage :  neither  can  they  die  any  more ;  for  they  are 
equal  unto  the  angels;  and  are  the  children  of  God,  being 
the  children  of  the  resurrection."  In  your  letter  of  Au- 
gust 21,  1834,  you  say,  that  ''but  for  this  clause,  [namely, 
'  they  which  shall  be  accounted  worthy  to  obtain  that  world 
and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,']  this  teat  would  render 


278  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

me  a  Universalist."  This  frank  statement  induced  me 
to  hope  that  I  should  succeed  in  convincing  you  of  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine  I  advocate  ;  and  I  accordingly  en- 
deavoured to  make  you  acquainted  with  the  true  import 
of  the  clause  in  question.  Although  you  did  not  notice  my 
exposition  thereof,  I  presume  you  were  not  satisfied  there- 
with. Allow  me  to  repeat  the  substance  of  the  argu- 
ment. 

The  Sadducees  did  not  accredit  the  doctrine  of  immor- 
tality, and  the  case  they  presented  was  merely  designed 
to  perplex  our  Lord.  Their  inquiry  assumed  that  conju- 
gal affinities  must  exist  in  the  future  life,  (if  a  future  life 
there  be,)  as  in  the  present;  and  that  there  men  would 
possess  many,  if  not  all,  the  passions  which  are  here  de- 
veloped. Hence  they  desired  to  know  whose  wife  of  the 
seven  brethren  the  woman  should  be  in  the  resurrection. 
The  supposition  that  our  Lord  evaded  the  inquiry,  is  not 
admissible  ;  and  since  it  will  freely  be  conceded  that  his 
reply  was  pertinent,  I  conclude  that  it  referred  directly  to 
the  resurrection  state.  He  contrasts  this  present  state  ot 
being,  in  which  matrimonial  alliances  are  contracted, 
with  the  incorruptible  and  spiritual  life,  in  which  no  such 
ties  are  formed. 

If  you  allege  that  some  of  our  race  shall  not  be  ac- 
counted worthy  to  be  raised  from  the  dead,  you  must 
discard  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  unless  you 
can  conceive  of  endless  punishment  without  a  resurrec- 
tion. But  since  you  grant  that  all  mankind  shall  be  the 
children  of  the  resurrection,  you  must  admit  that  they 
will  all  be  the  children  of  God.  Your  assertion  that 
some  of  the  human  family  "  will  be  undutiful  and  rebel- 
lious children  for  ever,"  is  exploded  by  the  declaration, 
that  "  the  [rational]  creation  shall  be  delivered  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorioles  liberty  of  the 
childrenof  God,"  Rom.  viii.  21. 

In  his  address  to  the  Sadducees,  our  Lord  simply  in- 
tended to  correct  their  error  as  to  the  condition  of  men  in 
the  future  state.  They  supposed,  as  previously  mentioned, 
that  the  passions  which  men  possess  in  this  world,  thef 


THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION.  279 

would  possess   hereafter;  and  they  imagined  that  the 

diffifuilties  of  tne  case  they  presented  furnished  an  unan- 
swerable objection  to  liie  doctrine  of  immortality.  The 
premiss  was  false.  Hence  said  Jesus,  "  Ye  do  err,  not 
knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God."  Then 
properly  followed  a  correction  of  the  error  referred  to. 

In  replying  to  an  inquiry  pertaining  solely  to  the  con- 
dition of  men,  that  is,  to  their  mode  of  being,  in  the 
resurrection  state,  our  Saviour  did  not  leel  called  upon 
to  say  how  many  would  be  raised  from  the  dead.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  (some  of  whom  were  present) 
restrained  the  resurrection  to  the  just,  which  restriction 
our  Lord  did  not  see  proper  directly  to  deny  on  that  occa- 
sion. Neither  did  he  then  deny  the  Pharisaic  notion  of 
the  transmigration  of  souls.  Indeed,  he  did  not,  at  that 
time,  expressly  dispute  any  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees — 
otherwise  the  Scribes  would  not  have  commended  his 
remarks.  Luke  xx.  39.  But  are  we  thence  to  infer,  thai 
be  countenanced  their  notion,  that  only  a  part  or  portion 
of  our  race  will  be  raised  from  the  dead  ?  Certainly  not. 
He  was  replying  to  a  question  of  condition,  and  not  of 
number.  He  certified  the  Sadducees,  and  he  certifies  us, 
that  as  many  as  shall  be  raised  shall  be  equal  unto  the 
angels ;  and  the  assurance  that  they  shall  be  the  children 
of  God,  is  predicated  of  the  fact,  that  they  shall  be  the 
children  of  the  resurrection.  Moreover:  Christianity 
teaches  that  all  who  bear  the  image  of  the  earthy,  and 
die  in  Adam,  are  by  the  Supreme  Being  accounted  worthy 
to  be  made  alive  in  Christ,  in  the  image  of  the  heavenly. 
Hence  Paul  could  hope  for  the  resurrection  even  of 
THE  UNJUST,  Acts  xxiv.  15.  He  expected  it — he  desired 
it;  and  the  conjunction  o^  expectation  Oiudi  desire  pro- 
duced in  him  a  hope  full  of  immortality.  He  looked  in 
faith  "for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing 
of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  Titus 
ii.  13,  '■  who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be 
fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the 
working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subdue  all  things  to 
feimself/'  Philippians  iii.  21.     He  speaks  of  the  change 


280  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

from  mortality  to  immortality  as  a  victory  over  death 
— as  the  means  of  introducing  the  whole  family  of  man 
into  a  state  of  ineffable  bliss,  where  "  the  Lord  God  will 
•wipe  away  tears  from  off  all  faces,"  1  Cor.  xv.  54,  55 ; 
Isaiah  xxv.  8.  And  he  enjoyed  so  clear  a  view  of  this 
sublime  consummation  of  the  reign  of  Christ,  that  he 
was  enabled  abundantly  to  "rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory 
of  God,"  Rom.  v.  2. 

There  are  many  important  considerations  connected 
with  the  Bible  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  which  I  should 
be  pleased  to  notice,  but  I  will  confine  my  remarks  to  the 
following  particulars  :  1st.  The  testimony  of  Jesus,  that 
"  in  the  resurrection  they  are  the  children  of  God,  being 
;  the  children  of  the  resurrection,"  destroys  the  popular  no- 
tion, that  the  condition  of  man  in  the  future  state  will 
be  determined  by  his  character  or  conduct  in  this.  Our 
Saviour  does  not  say,  '  In  the  resurrection  they  are  the 
children  of  God,  having  been  my  disciples  in  the  present 
world.'  No.  The  assurance  that  they  shall  be  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  is  predicated  of  the  simple  fact,  that  they 
shall  be  the  children  of  the  resurrection.  2d.  The 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  speak  of  the  future  blessedness 
of  individuals,  as  such.  All  the  members  of  the  hu- 
man familv  constitute  the  body  of  which  Jesus  is  the  head. 
"  The  head  of  eveiy  man  is  Christ,"  1  Cor.  xi.  3.  He 
tasted  "  death  for  every  man"  Heb.  ii.  9.  "  In  Christ  shall 
ALL  be  made  alive."  God  "  will  have  all  men  to  be  sa- 
ved." "  jErer?/ Avjce  shall  bow."  These  and  similar  forms 
of  expression  plainly  show,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  re- 
vealed the  future  condition  of  mankind  as  a  whole,  and 
not  as  individuals.  3d.  The  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  re- 
surrection, exposes  the  folly  of  the  inquiries  which  are 
so  frequently  made  as  to  the  condition  in  which  a  man 
has  died.  Is  it  sown  in  corruption  ?  it  shall  be  raised  in 
incorruption  :  is  it  sown  in  Aveakness  ?  it  shall  be  raised  in 
power :  is  it  sown  in  dishonour?  it  shall  be  raised  in  glory: 
is  it  sown  an  animal  body  ?  it  shall  be  raised  a  spiritual 
body :  has  the  person  died  in  Adam  ?  he  shall  be  made 
alive  ia  Christ :  did  he  bear  the  image  of  the  earthy  ?  he 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  281 

shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly.  The  questions 
should  not  be,  How  do  mankind  die  ?  in  what  condition 
do  they  depart  ?  but,  "  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ? 
and  with  what  body  do  they  come  ?"  Allow  the  sacred 
Scriptures  to  furnish  the  reply,  and  the  believer  of  the 
record  will  rejoice  in  the  assurance,  that  in  the  resurrec- 
tion universal  humanity  shall  walk  forth  in  the  beauty  of 
holiness,  redeemed  and  regenerated  by  the  quickening 
spirit  of  the  living  God. 

Yours  respectfully 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


TO  MR.  EZRA  STILES  ELY. 

Philadelphia,  July  15,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — The  divinely  inspired  apostle  Paul,  in  ad- 
dressing Timothy,  uses  the  following  emphatic  language  : 
"  For  therefore  we  both  labour  and  suffer  reproach,  be- 
cause we  trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour,  ttuvti^v 
avdpibnwv,  of  ALL  MEN,  especially  of  those  who  believe.  These 
things  command  and  teach,"  1  Timothy  iv.  10. 

I  desire  you  to  notice,  that  God  is  here  declared  to  be 
the  Saviour  of  all  men.  There  is  no  plausibility  in  the 
supposition,  that  this  testimony  merely  expresses  the  Di- 
vine willingness  or  desire  that  all  men  should  be  saved — 
nor  yet  simply  that  he  has  provided  a  Saviour  for  all. 
The  declaration  is  explicit  and  absolute.  No  objection 
can  be  inferred  from  the  present  tense  of  the  verb.  The 
living  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  in  the  sense  that  he 
*'  callelh  those  things  which  be  not  as  though  they  were," 
Ptom.  iv.  17.  So  Abraham  was  styled  "  the  father  ot 
many  nations,"  previously  to  the  birth  of  Isaac,  in  whom 
his  seed  was  called.  God  is  in  purpose  the  Saviour  ot 
all,  though  it  is  manifest  that  there  are  thousands  who 
have  not  yet  been  born  into  the  kingdom.  In  like  good 
sense  he  is  the  Creator  of  all,  even  of  those  who  as  yet 
exist  only  in  the  Divine  purpose.  And  as  God  acts  inde  ■■ 
24* 


282  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

pendently  in  constituting  himself  the  Creator  of  man- 
kind, so  I  judge  that  he  is  voluntarily  and  absolutely  the 
Saviour  of  all. 

The  human  race  is  a  family  of  which  the  Creator  is 
the  Father ;  and  we  are  therefore  the  children  cr  offspring 
of  God,  whatever  may  be  our  views  or  characters. 
There  is  also  a  sense  in  which  the  disciples  of  our  Lord 
can  claim  special  affinity  with  the  Supreme  Being.  Every 
Israelite  is  a  son  of  Abraham,  while  "they  which  are  of 
faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham"  in  a  spir- 
itual relation,  Galatians  iii.  7.  So  every  one  who  bears 
the  image  of  Adam,  is  a  child  of  the  Universal  Father, 
whatever  his  character  may  be  ;  while  "  as  many  as  are 
led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God,"  in  a 
more  exalted  sense,  Rom.  viii.  14.  Those  are  the  chil- 
dren of  God  by  simple  creation ;  these  are  "  the  children 
of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,"  Gal.  iii.  26.  But  all 
wen  are  now  in  the  fAirpose  of  heaven,  what  they  all  shall 
BE  in  fact,  the  children  of  God  in  a  still  more  exalted  re- 
lation. "  In  the  resurrection  they  are  equal  unto  the  an- 
gels, and  are  the  children  of  God,  being  the  children  of 
the  resurrection."  In  xhe  first  named  sense,  mankind  or^', 
and  in  the  last  they  shall  he,  unconditionally  and  absolutely, 
the  children  of  God.  Hence  there  is  equal  propriety  in 
declaring  that  he  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  as  in  acknow- 
ledging that  he  is  the  Creator  of  all.  And  hence  again, 
it  would  be  equally  improper  to  affirm,  that  God  is  the 
Creator  of  some  who  will  never  exist,  as  that  he  is  the 
Saviour  of  a  greater  number  than  will  actually  be  saved. 

I  hinted  above,  that  the  disciples  of  our  Lord  can  claim 
special  affinity  with  the  Supreme  Being.  So  in  the  pas- 
sage before  us,  God  is  declared  to  be  specially  the  Saviour 
of  those  ivho  helieve— which,  he  could  not  be  were  he  not 
actually  the  Saviour  of  all. 

Paul  wrote  to  Timothy  as  follows  :  "  The  cloak  that  I 
left  at  Troas  with  Carpus,  when  thou  comest,  bring  with 
thee,  and  the  books,  but  especially  the  parchments,"  2 
Tim.  iv.  13.  It  is  manifest  that  Paul  wished  to  receive 
the  cloak  and  books,  notwithstanding  this  special  men- 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  283 

tion  of  the  parchments.  Again  :  "  Let  the  elders  that 
rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially 
they  who  labour  in  Avord  and  doctrine,"  1  Tim.  v.  17. 
If  the  declaration  that  God  is  the  Sai-iour  of  all  men,  be 
nullified  by  the  testimony  that  he  is  specudhj  the  Saviour 
of  those  who  believe,  it  will  follow,  by  parity  of  inference 
that  none  of  the  elders  were  to  ''be  counted  worthy  of 
double  honour,"  excepting  those  who  laboured  in  word 
and  doctrine  !  Indeed,  according  to  the  objector's  view  of 
the  text,  the  apostle  intended  to  say,  that  God  is  not  the 
Saviour  of  all  men,  but  only  of  those  who  believe  ! 

The  popular  estimate  of  faith,  and  of  the  benefits  ac- 
cruing therefrom,  is  radically  erroneous.  I  stated  in  a 
previous  letter,  that  faith  does  not,  and  cannot,  create  any 
IriJth— and  I  will  add  that  faith  is  simply  the  result  of 
evidence  Avhich  the  mind  deems  conclusive.  Whether 
the  statement  presented  be  true  or  false,  it  is  not,  it  can- 
not be,  aflfected  either  by  acknowledgment  or  denial. 
Truth  exists  independentl'v  of  the  evidence  of  it,  and  in- 
dependently also  of  the  action  of  the  mind.  So  when  we 
read  that  God  is  speciallv  the  Saviour  of  those  who  be- 
lieve, we  properly  inquire  for  the  truth  the  belief  of  which 
confers  a  special  salvation. 

Opposers  of  Universalisin  frequently  speak  of  the  es- 
sential truths  of  the  gospel— bv  which  thev  mean,  that 
there  are  truths  the  belief  of  which  is  essential  to  the 
happiness  of  the  future  state.  What  are  those  truths  ? 
Are  they  the  trinity,  vicarious  atonement,  or  imputed 
righteousness  ?  You  will  not  answer  in  the  affirmative— 
for  you  admit  that  many  persons  will  be  saved  who  do 
not  believe  those  items  of  your  creed.  Is  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment  the  essential  truth  for  which  we  now 
inquire?  If  you  reply  that  it  is  not,  I  ask,  whv  do  you  so 
strenuously  contend  for  a  non-essential  doctrine  ?  But  if 
you  reply  that  it  is,  you  must  hold  that  it  is  not  possible 
lor  any  Universalist  to  be  saved  !  Yea,  and  you  must 
adopt  the  most  contradictory  and  absurd  conclusions, 
iou  grant  that  all  men  may  be  saved  ;  and  you  hold  that 
salvation  is  consequent  only  of  believing  or  coming  to  the 


284  THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION. 

knowledge  of  the  truth.  Now  suppose  that  all  men  were 
-to  become  true  believers — would  they  not  all  be  saved  ? 
Certainly.  Then  surely  if  endless  punishment  be  the 
thing  to  be  believed,  all  men  would  be  saved  by  believing 
a  lie !  Are  you  prepared  to  admit  that  Universal  faith 
would  falsify  any  Bible  truth  ?  If  you  are  not  prepared 
for  this  admission,  you  must  grant  that  the  belief  of  end- 
less punishment  is  not  essential  to  salvation — yea,  that  it 
is  not  in  any  sense  an  essential  doctrine.  And,  sir,  a 
faithful  examination  of  this  subject,  in  the  light  I  have 
presented  it,  will  satisfy  you,  that  the  happiness  of  the 
future  state  is  not  dependent  on  the  exercise  of  faith  in 
any  doctrine  whatever.  The  reception  of  immortal  bless- 
edness, by  any  of  our  race,  depends  solely  and  alone  on 
the  accomplishment  of  the  gracious  purpose  of  the  living 
<^od.  Were  it  otherwise — were  the  immortal  condition 
of  man  contingent  of  faith  or  of  the  performance  of  good 
works,  there  would  be  no  certainty  of  the  salvation  of  any 
of  our  race  !  For,  even  should  it  be  conceded  that  they 
Avho  fulfil  the  alleged  conditions  will  certainly  be  the  re- 
•cipients  of  endless  bliss,  the  uncertainty  that  even  a 
single  soul  u-iJl  fulfil  those  conditions,  involves  equal  un- 
certainty of  the  final  destination  of  mankind.  There  can 
he  no  certainty  that  a  specified  end  will  be  attained,  un- 
less it  be  certain  that  the  requisite  means  will  be  adopted. 
To  contend  that  some  of  the  human  family  will  certainly 
'he  saved,  is  to  admit  the  absolute  purpose  of  God  to  that 
•efiect,  excluding  all  contingency  ;  and  to  deny  that  some 
of  our  race  will  certainly  be  saved,  is  to  admit  the  possi' 
lility  that  all  may  be  irrecoverably  lost !  This  conclusion 
is  so  discordant  with  all  ihat  we  know  of  Divine  benevo- 
lence, and  so  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  governing 
providence  of  God,  as  to  condemn  the  doctrine  to  which 
it  belongs. 

Should  you  desire  to  know  in  what  the  special  salva- 
tion of  believers  consists,  this  is  my  reply  :  In  believing 
the  glorious  truth  that  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  they 
"enter  into  rest,"  Heb.  iv.  2;  they  are  filled  "  with  joy 
^jwid  neace."  Rom.  xv.  13  ;  they  "  rejoice  with  joy  unspeak- 


THEOLOGICAL  DISCUSSION.  285 

^h\e  and  full  of  glory,"  1  Peter  i.  8.  In  believincr  the 
truth,  they  enjoy  the  presence  and  the  blessin- of "  the 
Comforter,"  which  IS  "the  SptrU  of  truth,"  John  xv.  26. 
Their  faith  works  by  love,  and  purifies  their  hearts,  Gal. 
V.  6 ;  Acts  XV.  9.  Enjoying  "  the  full  assurance  of  faith  » 
they  possess  also  "  the  full  assurance  of  Ao«.  "  Heb  vi 
'  ^\  V  ^^.?  ^H^  ""^^  ^^^  ^^^^^  seal  to  the  truth  of  the 
record   that  yerfect  love  casteth   out  fear,  because  fear 

ove,  1  John  IV  18.  Theirs  is  a  living  faith,  because 
t  is  a  filth  in  the  living  God;  and  tn  helievm<r  that  the 
living  God  IS  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  they  enjoy  the  spe- 
cial salvation  mentioned  in  the  text.  Blessed,  thr  ce 
blessed  are  thexj  who  know  the  joyful  sound 

fn^V-'^r'^K-^^''^"  ^'^  fiequently  assailed  with  "the  following 
foolish  objection  :  'If  Universalism  be  true,  it  is  stran-e 
that  the  apostles  should  so  zealously  and  perseverinoly 
labour  to  make  the  people  acquainted  with  the  fact  .ince 
it  IS  manifest  that  such  acquaintance  with  the  doct-ine 
could  have  no  influence  on  the  final  destination  of  our 

n  nT'tn  \  ''  '''^"^'i  '^/'  ''!f  ^  '^^°"^^  ^^  ^^^^^^^  to  labour, 
and  to  be  reproached  and  persecuted  by  wicked  men 
If  they  believed  that  the  final  holiness  and  happiness 
of  all  mankind  is  secured  by  the  absolute  purpose  of 
God.  lo  this  I  rep  y,  that  the  ministerial  labours  of 
the  apostles,  and  the  reproaches  they  suffered,  are 
assigned  of  their  faith  in  Universalism  !  "  For  therl 
fore  we  both  labour  and  suffer  reproach,  because  we 
trust  in  thehving  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all 
men,  especially  of  those  who  believe.'^—Moreovev'  the 
objection  assumes,  that  no  man  can  consistentlv  labour  to 
promote  the  temporal  well-being  of  humanity !  The  his- 
tory ot  John  Howard,  (than  whom,  in  mv  judgment, Vo 
better  man  has  lived  since  John  the  Eran-elist  died  ) 
evinces  how  much  a  philanthropist  may  be  willing  to  do 
ent  f' '  ^'^'l^'^'f^'^'  condition  of  men  in  th?  pres- 
ent  life.     He  heard  the  cry   of  the  prisoners,  and   the 

^'±"^''^  '^^u''''''  ^V^  ^y  "  '^''  inhumani'ty  of  man 
to  man  5"  and  he  went  down  into  the  gloomy  duncreons 


286  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

to  "wipe  away  the  tears  of  sorrow,  to  speak  a  word  of 
comfort  to  the  children  of  suffering,  and  to  smooth  down 
the  straw  pallets  on  which  they  reclined.  He  heard  the 
groaning  of  the  victims  of  ''  the  pestilence  that  walketh 
in  darkness,  and  that  wasteth  at  noonday  ;"  and  he  went 
into  I  he  kingdoms  of  disease  to  stay  the  ravages  of  the 
angel  of  death.  Eventually  he  was  himself  smitten  of 
the  plague,  and  died,  a  martyr  in  the  cause  of  humanity. 
And  if  Ae  could  thus  labour  and  die  for  the  good  of  men, 
without  reference  to  their  immortal  destiny,  is  it  strange 
that  the  inspired  servants  of  the  Most  High  God  should 
devote  their  lives  and  all  their  energies  to  the  promotion 
of  human  happiness  in  the  earth  ?  Sir,  I  sincerely  pity 
the  man  who  is  either  so  ignorant  or  perverse  as  to  urge 
the  objection  in  review. 

Having  already  shown  you  in  what  the  special  salva- 
tion of  the  believer  consists,  I  desire  to  direct  your  atten- 
tion to  an  argument  thence  deducible  in  proof  of  Univer- 
salism.  Since  '"the  Spirit  of  truth"  is  styled  "the  Com- 
forter^^'' there  can  be  nothing  tormenting  in  the  Christian 
faith.  On  the  contrary,  he  who  believes  "  the  truth  as  it 
is  in  Jesus,"  enters  into  rest ;  is  filled  with  joy  and  peace  ; 
yea,  he  rejoices  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory. 
And  now,  sir,  will  you  pretend  that  faith  in  the  doctrine 
of  endless  wo.  in  any  of  its  modifications,  can  fill  the 
soul  with  the  peace  of  God  ?  Will  you  pretend  that  the 
prospect  of  interminable  wretchedness  for  any  of  our  race, 
can  cause  the  believer  to  rejoice  with  unutterable  joy  ? 
To  what  heart  is  the  spirit  of  eternal  wrath  the  Comfort- 
er ?  Let  m€  come  a  little  nearer  to  you:  you  love  your 
children.  He  who  touches  them,  in  the  way  of  injury, 
touches  the  apple  of  their  father's  eye.  You  rejoice  in 
their  happiness.  Your  heart  is  inclined  to  them  in  all  the 
tenderness  of  paternal  love.  Can  you  bear  the  thought 
that  any  of  them  shall  be  the  subjects  of  endless  damna- 
tion ?  Can  you  rejoice  in  believing  that  a  son  or  daugh- 
ter shall  be  sentenced  to  the  doom  of  darkness  and  de- 
spair for  ever  1  Pardon  m€  for  asking  these  questions. 
You  have  a  father's  heart,  and  I  know  that  rejoicing  is  a 


THEOLOGICAL    DISCUSSION.  287 

Stranger  to  your  soul,  whenever  you  mentally  grant  that 
some  of  your  offspring  may  he  eternally  lost ! 

But  even  supposing  you  to  be  satisfied  that  yourself, 
your  wife,  your  cliildren,  your  parents,  will  certainly  be 
saved,  is  there  not  still  an  aching  void  in  your  heart? 
Are  ^ou  filled  with  joy  and  peace?  Believing  that  any 
number  of  mankind  will  be  miserable  world  without 
end,  can  you  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of 
glory  ?  In  contemplating  the  endless  ruin,  the  undying 
agony,  of  millions  of  your  brethren  in  the  human  race, 
do  you  experience  the  celestial  influences  of  the  Com- 
forter? But  why  should  I  press  these  questions?  Are 
you  not  a  man  ?  and  do  you  not  possess  the  feelings  of  a 
man  ?  Yet,  if  you  are  not  comforted  by  faith  in  the 
doctrine  of  endless  torments — if  you  rejoice  not  with  un- 
speakable joy  in  believing  that  a  part  of  mankind 
will  be  doomed  to  unutterable  wo, — either  the  doctrine 
in  question  is  false,  or  your  heart  is  not  right  in  the  sight 
of  God  !  The  allegation  that  you  expect  hereafter  to 
rejoice  in  the  damnation  of  the  impenitent,  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose — for,  in  the  first  place,  if  you  believe  tlje 
truth  you  will  be  comforted  now.  you  will  rejoice  in  be- 
lieving; and  in  the  second,  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  the 
resurrection  will  change  man  into  a  fiend  ! 

But  1  gladly  turn  from  the  contemplation  of  a  doctrin- 
al system  devised  in  the  wisdom  of  the  world,  which  is 
foolishness  with  God — a  system  fraught  with  the  most 
blasphemous  and  revolting  conclusions  ;  and  with  the 
most  unfeigned  respect  I  invite  you  to  take  a  view  of  the 
doctrine  of  illimitable  grace.  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God; 
who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  John  i,  29. 
Behold  in  faith  the  triumphs  of  redeeming  love !  Behold 
the  issue  of  the  reign  of  Christ ! 

"Then  the  end  :  beneath  his  rod, 
Man's  last  enemy  shall  fall; 
Alleluia !  Chnst  in  God — 
God  in  Christ  is  all  in  all .'" 

In  dwelling  on  this  glorious  theme  the  heart  grows 
warm  in  gratitude  and  love,  and  the   kindling  glow  of 


/ 


2S8  THEOLOGICAL   DISCUSSION. 

the  Comforter,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  felt  in  the  soul. 
Truly  the  believer  can  ''rejoice  wiih.  joy  unspeakable^ 
and  full  of  glory:''  Id  anticipation  of  the  blissful  era. 
when  the  hand  of  the  living  God  shall  wipe  the  tear 
from  every  eye,  and  hush  in  every  breast  the  rising  sigh 
forever.  And  herein  consists  the  special  salvation  he 
enjoys.  It  is  a  salvation  from  the  fear  that  hath  tor- 
ment— it  is  a  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  the  fear  of 
death,  Heb.  ii.  14.  It  is  the  result  of  unwavering  con- 
fidence in  the  fulfilment  of  the  absolute  promise  of  the 
Almighty,  that  all  the  nations,  families  and  kindreds  of 
theea'rib,  shall  eventually  be  blessed  in  Christ. 

In  drawing  this  series  of  epistles  to  a  close,  you  will 
allow  me  to  express  my  desire,  that  you  may  yet  be 
enabled  to  take  your  correspondent  by  the  hand,  and  to 
unite  with  him  in  saying,  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  "For 
therefore  we  both  labour  and  sufier  reproach,  because  we 
trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men, 
especially  of  those  who  believe." 

Yours  respectfully, 

ABEL  C.  THOMAS. 


DATE  DUE 


i 


PRINTED  INU-S.A. 


